Technology as well as algorithms play a significant role in everyday life and has increased immensely over the past decade. While in the past, users had to search for content they enjoyed; now content falls into the lap of the user for them to consume continuously. The content one consumes influences what they buy, think and even do in their day to day lives. The Supreme Court, through the case presented to them in Gonzalez v. Google, must consider the policies of these major tech companies and how their decisions increase radicalism throughout the globe.
It all started with 23-year-old Nicole Gonzalez, who was killed in Paris after individuals affiliated with ISIS shot and killed her. Her relatives felt that Google played a role in her death as ISIS often posted their videos containing racializing content and videos that often lead to recruitment YouTube, to which Google is a parent company. Besides being a platform for this content, YouTube also has an algorithm that promotes content to others and would therefore encourage those who were interested in or had ideologies to ISIS to only go further down into the rabbit hole.
The two federal appeal courts that ruled on the case thus far have determined that Google is not at fault for the content that was posted, and that led the family of the Gonzalez’ all the way to the Supreme Court. Yet, unlike cases in the past where there was a strong support for Section 230, the lower courts were not unanimous. Judge Ronald Gould stated in his dissenting opinion that he believed that Section 230 should not protect Google in their role as intensifiers of violent messages. In addition, although they did decide against Gonzalzes’, Judge Morgan Christen, who wrote for the majority, acknowledged that those who wrote Section 230 could not have foreseen what the Internet has grown into.
Judge Clarence Thomas, a justice of the Supreme Court, has written in the past that he believes that, like telephone companies, they should not discriminate based on the content they have and that the court has the responsibility to decide if the current understanding of Section 230 may be too vague.
The Court’s decision in this could change the fate of Section 230 of the United States Communications Act. Most platforms are currently protected under it as it provides immunity for them with third-party content. Yet, a question remains of whether recommendations made by algorithms that inherently push certain content, including extremism in some cases, are protected.
If the Supreme Court decided in favor of Gonzalez, that would mean that algorithms would be limited in their ability to recommend content to others. In turn, by opening the door of limiting freedom of expression by nullifying Section 230, there is no promise that other types would be reduced alongside Section 230. All online expressions could be changed by this decision. However, currently, there is no way to know what they will decide as it is too early in the process to tell.
No matter what the Supreme Court rules, there is bound to be a multitude of implications not only for these companies, but for the government and especially the consumers.
