This Supreme Court case could destroy the internet

I have a feeling that humanity won’t lose the internet any time soon, big tech has infinite manpower, and even more resources, and even if they fail, people can always find a way around.

I could see a lot of interesting possible outcomes from different ways the court could rule on this. I do think that the most likely ruling will be full upholding of Section 230 without any modification, but I could see them making a different ruling that specifically targets recommendation algorithms. If they did that, I do not think the impact would be catastrophic. It would radically change many sites, but it might actually be an improvement. Imagine if YouTube was not allowed to recommend videos. It would still be able to show you new videos from channels you subscribed to - the thing most people want it to do but YT refuses to do, it would still have search results, etc. TikTok would pretty much die because it was structured solely around a recommendation algorithm to begin with probably. Reddit and places like that already don’t really rely much on recommendation algorithms. It might eliminate a lot of the slippery slopes for teen girls straight into pro-ana horrors, boys down the chute to Andrew Tate, etc. But if they went hardcore and just repealed Section 230 like ignorant people want to happen, yeah, social media would be gone the next day. Completely. Basically any site that permits users to post anything of any kind would shut off posting ability. It would take quite awhile for new systems to be developed and tested to get around the legal minefield it creates. I could imagine reconfiguring YouTube such that instead of YT providing a video platform for everybody, it instead provides software tools and hosting services so that end users could essentially operate their own video streaming site so that YT would just be the software provider and the end user would be completely liable for content posted on it.

Well, apparently the Petitioners admited that merely displaying and recommending content fell within Section 230, so the question they’re asking now is if Section 230 stays in play if the recommendations are done via an algorithm. This comes from an articles on Medium by one Jess Miers, who has it from the public documents.

Man, the 2020’s are turning out to be one hell of a decade. I never thought I’d sit here and side with major corporations on anything, but yet here I am. I’m pretty optimistic about the outcome all things considered, because I know for a fact that every tech giant in the industry is going to be highly against this. It’s literally how they make money after all. Sure, what happened to gonzales is tragic, but at this point, the family are literally trying to milk the death of a loved one for some easy money.

i don’t think this lawsuit will solve the problem if they win but the algorithms on many sites could be greatly improved.

if this leads to google/youtube improving their algorithm to avoid people ending up at radicalising content, that would not be a bad thing. as they get closer to potential content that may radicalise them, the algorithm could adopt a Flickr approach and “take them to the kittens” instead, perhaps.

the center for humane technology (CHT) and the center for countering digital hate (CCDH) have both highlighted places where sites like YouTube could vastly improve on this but their goal is to keep people on the site, not keep them away from harm to themselves or others.

A lot of the attention of these arguments are on the effects of social media, but not very many are talking about the effects this could have on search engines. Since search engines tend to also use algorithms to personalize search this could also take down the main way people navigate the internet.

It will change how advertising works, algorithms, ai, and the like which can not be fully controlled. Will be either liable or need to be secured.

So youtube will be returned to how it was before, recommendations based on their own searches and only match what they search and watch.

well the case could be more specific, targeting google’s algorithm instead. because it is kind of true. the way the algorithm works it just creates an echo chamber and radicalizes people more and more. if gonzalez wasn’t saying “allowing them to post terrorist videos” they might have had a better case.

I don’t see why the Supreme Court would want to side with the Gonzales family especially when you consider how much conservatives love their Twitter and Facebook