Jan 13, 2023 13:30:00

Depending on the outcome of the trial, ``the Internet may be broken'', Google exempted the media from responsibility for user postings in the Supreme Court's trial over ``Article 230 of the Communication Quality Law''

On February 21, 2023, the ``

Gonzalez vs. Google Trial '', in which the bereaved families of victims of attacks by ISIS are suing Google for algorithms such as YouTube to support terrorists, will be held at the Supreme Court. Before this trial, where the scope of application of Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is said to be ``not applicable to algorithms,'' is a point of contention, Google said, ``If the law is overturned, the way the Internet is used may change fundamentally. I have a nature,” he said.

20230112144706745_Gonzalez v. Google Brief for Respondent - FINAL.pdf
(PDF file) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Gonzalez v Google and the future of an open, free and safe internet
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/gonzalez-v-google-and-the-future-of-an-open-free-and-safe-internet/

Google tells Supreme Court: Don't undercut the internet
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/12/google-supreme-court-undercut-internet-section-230

Google Says Supreme Court Ruling Could Potentially Upend the Internet - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-says-supreme-court-ruling-could-potentially-upend-the-internet-11673553968

Article 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act stipulates, 'In principle, providers (platform services such as SNS and ISPs) are not responsible for information transmitted by third parties, and take measures such as deletion of harmful content (access is prohibited). measures taken in good faith and voluntarily to limit),' (PDF file) law . While there is a view that this law, which was enacted in 1996, ``prevents censorship by providers and protects free speech'', there is also a view that ``it is a factor in the increase in posts of false information and slander.'' It is done.

The plaintiff in the Gonzalez vs. Google trial scheduled to be held in February is the bereaved family of a 23-year-old American student, Nohemi Gonzalez, who was a victim of a terrorist attack by Islamic State (ISIS) in November 2015. The plaintiff is suing YouTube, which is owned by Google, for ``supporting ISIS by recommending videos of terrorist groups to users,'' and ``The YouTube algorithm that displays recommended videos should not be protected under Article 230. , Google should be held responsible.'

Plaintiffs further said, 'Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act extends the indemnity shield to actions and circumstances that the legislator did not foresee. Certain actions by platforms, such as promoting harmful content, are protected.' Shouldn't be done,' he argued, 'If YouTube wrote on its homepage that 'YouTube strongly recommends watching this video', it is clearly outside the scope of the platform's responsibility.' Information provided by a third party is not'.

The current situation is that lawsuits on the issue of `` whether Article 230 of the Communications Decency Law applies to algorithms ''

have been held against Facebook and TikTok so far.

The hearing will determine whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act extends to algorithms. Regarding this, Google submitted a letter of intent on January 12, 2023, ahead of the trial, saying, ``Modifying Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act will weaken the core components of the Internet,'' the court said. appealed to

Google argues that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act re-examines the scope of the law because it has always protected content providers' ability to recommend relevant and useful content to users and connect people with their content. If so, the quality of these services will decline.

In addition, the revision of Article 230 would undermine freedom of expression, forcing some websites to undergo excessive censorship and the need to filter content that could pose a legal risk on a case-by-case basis. Google claims that it may be completely stopped. This means that users will lose choice in how they enjoy the Internet and will lose the opportunity to participate in working, playing, learning, shopping, creating and exchanging ideas.

Also, if legal protection were to be reduced, it would lead large websites to block more potentially offensive content, while smaller Google says that large websites will stop filtering.

Google said a ruling that undermines Section 230 would force websites to either remove potentially controversial content or turn a blind eye to objectionable content. This leaves content providers with a choice between overly curated mainstream sites and fringe sites teeming with objectionable content.' It also states that the algorithms that display recommendations should be non-discriminatory and all of them should be protected under Section 230.

'If the Supreme Court were to change the widely accepted application of Section 230, it would hinder access to information, restrict free expression and hurt the economy,' said Halima Delane Brad, Google's general counsel. and make consumers more vulnerable to harmful content.'