Microsoft and Meta back Google in case that could change the Internet

Visits: 0

In a flurry of court arguments submitted on Thursday in a Supreme Court case that has the potential to radically alter how the Internet functions, Meta Platforms Inc., Microsoft Corp., Twitter Inc., and other internet companies defended Google.

The Supreme Court justices are being urged by the tech industry to carefully consider Gonzalez v. Google, a case that concerns whether online businesses should be held accountable for the content that they suggest to consumers.

The Communications Decency Act’s 1996 Section 230, which covers user contributions like comments, reviews, advertising, and more, now protects businesses from legal action.

The act, which was drafted before the Internet became an integral part of daily life, is currently being reviewed by the court to determine whether it should be narrowed.

However, the businesses  including Microsoft and Yelp Inc., generally Google’s competitors  claim that reducing the online speech liability shield may make it impossible for them to provide customers with useful recommendations.

Additionally pledging support were Reddit Inc. and Craigslist Inc.

A court decision undermining the statute could “strip these digital publishing decisions of long-standing, critical protection from suit  and it would do so in illogical ways that are inconsistent with how algorithms actually work,” Microsoft said in the filing.

The plaintiffs  the family of an American woman killed in a 2015 terrorist attack by ISIS  claim that Alphabet Inc.’s Google, which owns YouTube, bears responsibility for the automated process that recommends videos, such as those that could contribute to radicalisation.

On February 21, the court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case.

Advocates for children’s online safety such as Fairplay and Common Sense Media supported the Gonzalez family in the lawsuit, contending that the tech industry should be held accountable for the ways in which its products might endanger kids.

Gonzalez was partially supported by the US government, which argued that social media corporations should occasionally be held accountable for encouraging dangerous speech.

The companies focused the bulk of their filings on warnings about how a ruling could harm their products.

Meta, operator of Facebook, said the case would force online companies to remove far more content than they do now.

Changes to Section 230, according to the business, “would encourage web services to remove significant, provocative, and content on topics of public importance, upsetting what Congress intended to be a lively marketplace of various opinions.”

A sweeping finding that modifies Section 230, according to Microsoft, may have “devastating and destabilizing implications” on its search engine Bing and online forum LinkedIn.

Microsoft said in a statement that it is best to let Congress make any changes to Section 230.

Twitter said that recommendation algorithms help organize the vast amounts of information on the web and make it easier for users to access and understand.

“Section 230 ensures that websites like Twitter and YouTube can function notwithstanding the unfathomably large amounts of information they make available and the potential liability that could result from doing so,” Twitter said in its filing.

The business said, “To download all data from the web now would take the average user around 181 million years.”

Although Yelp stated in its filing that it “does not frequently associate itself with Google,” “the potential repercussions for consumers and online platforms are significant” with regard to this matter.

Yelp claimed that without Section 230, it would be difficult to give readers helpful ratings and recommendations.

Several smaller businesses, including Indeed Inc. and Ziprecruiter Inc., as well as trade organisations for the tech sector made comments regarding the impact of Section 230 on their business models.

Separately, the court will decide on Friday whether to take up two more Section 230-related cases.

In Texas and Florida, new laws that would penalize digital companies for limiting political speech on their platforms are being challenged by the cases.