Latest in Section 230
The companion cases mark a major decision in platform liability for terrorist material hosted on their services.
The Supreme Court appears unlikely to significantly alter immunity for digital platforms. How could Congress go about constructing a balanced knowledge liability system?
During oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, the Supreme Court appeared to genuinely grapple with complex questions about the responsibility of social media platforms for their users’ posts.
Generative AI products won’t receive the same Section 230 protections as other tech products. What will that mean for the future of the technology and the rules that govern it?
On Feb. 21 and 22, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter Inc., v. Taamneh, a set of companion cases dealing with the liability of platforms for terrorist material hosted on their services.
Last month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases exploring the interaction between anti-terrorism laws and Section 230. It remains to be seen whether the legislature or the Supreme Court will address Section 230 first, but this may be the prologue to a watershed moment for the internet and its users.
The Fifth Circuit badly overreaches in upholding Texas’s social media moderation law, making a hash of the First Amendment in the process.
What’s the best path forward for platform transparency regulation?
FOSTA, which became law in 2018, deserves greater attention as a cautionary tale about what can go wrong with reforms of § 230.
The lawsuit alleges that Facebook gave rise to the far-right extremist boogaloo movement that led Officer Dave Patrick Underwood’s killer and his accomplice to connect.