We Risk Losing The Internet With Google Facing The Supreme Court

It is expected that this ruling will have a significant impact on YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, and other online companies

‍

One of the most important questions of the age of the internet could be answered by a pending Supreme Court case: Should companies that promote harmful content be held accountable?

‍

Google v. Gonzalez could upend the modern internet economy, affecting every online business. In the event that Google loses, internet companies - from social media platforms to travel websites to online marketplaces - may find themselves scrambling to reorganize their businesses to avoid costly lawsuits. 

‍

It is hoped that the case will be argued on Feb. 21 and the court will decide whether YouTube, which is owned by Google, can be held liable for recommendations of Islamic State terrorism videos. A lawsuit has been filed against the company by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old US citizen who was among the 130 people killed in coordinated attacks by the Islamic State in Paris in November 2015 and was among the victims of the attacks. 

‍

According to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a statute at the heart of this case, online platforms are protected from facing lawsuits because they host toxic content and the companies are able to remove posts as they see fit because the statute protects platforms from facing lawsuits. As a result of the Gonzalez case, the issue in question is whether platforms are protected by the Section 230 shield when their own algorithms are used to boost toxic material, videos, and photos.

‍

There has been considerable concern among internet companies across the country about the possibility of a significant overhaul of Section 230. It could result in less speech online and fewer recommended playlists, podcasts, product reviews, social media posts, and more, according to briefs filed with the court by the companies. The company says it may have to filter out more content from its video-streaming platform if a ruling in favor of the Gonzalez family is handed down. 

‍

There is also a possibility that it could threaten lucrative profits from online advertising. It is possible that the Supreme Court justices will decide to issue a narrow ruling that won't have widespread impacts if they decide to issue a narrow ruling. In his opening statement to the Supreme Court, Eric Schnapper, the family's lawyer at the court, explained that the Gonzalez family has "tried to stake out a position that will not disrupt the industry in any way." 

‍

Social media companies are exaggerating how much of an impact it could have, according to Gonzalez family supporters.

‍

Mary Anne Franks, a lawyer with the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, described what the tech industry is saying when they raise these concerns. “Universities and publishers can all be sued, and Section 230 immunity does not apply to them." 

‍

The ruling in Gonzalez v. Google may have a significant impact on several companies. Either individually or in coalition with others, all the companies supported Google:

‍

Meta Platforms Inc. 

With nearly 3 billion monthly active users, Meta Platform's Facebook remains one of the most popular social media platforms in the world despite an economic downturn. Meta uses a network of algorithms that recommend relevant posts so viewers can sift through its vast amount of content. 

‍

The Court could be opening Meta up to lawsuits related to posts, photos, advertisements, and updates that its algorithms recommend if it pares back Section 230's broad protections. Despite the fact that the company has thousands of employees responsible for moderating content and more than 90 fact-checking partners, it still faces challenges in policing every post from the billions of people who use its services. 

‍

In 2021, Meta spent roughly $9.82 billion on legal expenses, according to its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company predicts that number will rise if it has to face lawsuits over its algorithmic recommendations across its platforms in the future.

‍

It is likely that Meta would significantly reduce the amount of speech it allows on its platforms so as to avoid lawsuits in the first place. Meta wrote in its brief to the Supreme Court that an unfavorable ruling might "incentivize online services to remove important, provocative, and controversial content."

‍

There are some activists who believe it is time for Meta to be sued for crimes committed on its websites, such as drug sales, cyberstalking, abuse, and violent threats against its users. As a way to avoid legal costs, Meta could reduce the number of people being allowed to post on its platforms in order to avoid legal repercussions. 

‍

According to Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, they would allow celebrities, big brands, and politicians onto the site since those are the ones driving most of the activity and creating the least liability. “There will be a much smaller universe of people who can access Google and Facebook's tools." 

‍

An expansive ruling on Gonzalez v. Google would also threaten Meta's online advertising business. Approximately half of all digital ads are placed by Meta and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, which could be subject to a wave of lawsuits.

‍

Reddit Inc. 

There are many people from both political parties who are calling for Section 230 reform, with most of their criticism being directed at Google, Facebook, and Twitter Inc. There is no doubt that narrowing the statute could have a much greater impact on smaller internet companies. 

‍

In order to determine which posts stay up and which are removed on Reddit, an online forum with almost 50 million monthly active users, volunteers decide which posts will stay up. There are times when community moderators make use of Reddit's "auto-moderator" tool to pull posts that violate their rules automatically, for example, if a comment contains slurs or violent language that violates the community's rules. 

‍

In addition, Reddit recommends content based on posts users have previously "upvoted.".

‍

As Benjamin Lee, Reddit's general counsel, explained in an interview, Section 230 gives smaller platforms the chance to compete with larger ones. “Having this community-based moderation approach allows Reddit to be unique." 

‍

The Reddit community is no stranger to litigation. A volunteer moderator recently fought off a lawsuit over a decision to ban a member who used a pejorative term for effeminate men to refer to a Star Trek character. 

‍

The case was one of about a dozen that were dismissed last year because of Section 230 protections, Lee said. As a result of narrower legal protections, his concern is that number would skyrocket. The company might have to go through a full trial for each case, which could be costly.

‍

Etsy Inc. 

In order to help users find similar products to those they have previously searched for or bought, Etsy, an e-commerce site that specializes in handmade craft items, uses algorithms. A person searching for Converse shoes, for example, would be directed to Etsy sellers who specialize in sneakers and similar fashion items. 

‍

The online marketplaces could face lawsuits if their algorithms recommended dangerous products without Section 230. Etsy could be discouraged from hosting user reviews because they leave it vulnerable to defamation claims. 

‍

Etsy relies on sellers' product descriptions. Currently, Etsy isn't liable if products don't match descriptions exactly. However, the Gonzalez case could create judicial uncertainty regarding Etsy's legal responsibility for every description it publishes.

‍

Spotify USA Inc. 

In spite of its position as the leading music streaming service, Spotify has maintained its position primarily because of its personalized playlists, which recommend songs and podcasts based on the listening behaviors of users to them.

‍

Spotify could be exposed to lawsuits over its promotion of audio in playlists such as Discovery Weekly and Your Daily Podcasts under a new legal framework that has just been implemented.

‍

“The algorithms used by audio streaming services to help organize the content and make sure you hear what you want to hear are in some way implicated in every single way in which fans interact with these services,” says Garrett Levin, CEO of the Digital Media Association. Spotify is a member of the organization along with Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., which both offer music streaming services on their platforms. 

‍

There has already been controversy surrounding Spotify's podcasts. Over the past year, activists and Spotify staff have criticized the company for its No. 1 podcaster Joe Rogan, who hosted a series of guests that spread misinformation about Covid-19. The loss of Section 230's protections could lead to more lawsuits against Spotify for controversial content. While most of that speech would likely be protected by the First Amendment, the lawsuits themselves could create thorny issues and create huge legal costs for the company.

‍

Startups 

Startup founders might be discouraged from creating online businesses under a new legal system, according to Section 230 advocates. 

‍

“The smaller companies I care about are the ones that haven't even been born yet,” Goldman said. 

‍

A startup's valuation can easily be exceeded by the cost of defending even one lawsuit, according to Engine, a group that represents startups and receives funding from Google, Amazon, Meta, and smaller tech companies.

‍

In order to create a new company, startup founders must typically comply with a complex set of legal requirements. The risk of litigation over its recommendation algorithms would only increase uncertainty.