WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and some of his most prominent Republican opponents in Congress have become allies of sorts in the upcoming Supreme Court showdown between Big Tech and its critics.
The Biden administration shares much of the same view as prominent Republicans such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, and is in favor of limiting exemptions for internet companies. regulations The Communications Decency Act of 1996 called Section 230.
The 26-word clause credited with the rise of social media has largely shielded companies from defamation claims and many other lawsuits over user-submitted content.
Both senators are vying for attention in the populist part of the Republican Party, but they were a big problem for Mr. Biden even before he took office.they both sides objected The 2020 election results have proven to be part of former President Donald Trump’s ill-fated campaign to stay in power that culminated in the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol.
But loose allies in a lawsuit involving YouTube heard in court on Tuesday show the company’s opposition to its content moderation decisions and the broad immunity it receives for the content its users post. crossing ideological boundariesYouTube’s owners have also had an unusual allies backing Google, with the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, the libertarian Cato Institute, and the corporate giant US Chamber of Commerce all on their side.
the case is A central function of the modern Internet: Targeted recommendations. Apps like YouTube want to keep users on their site, so they try to show relevant content to entice them to click. Opponents, however, argue that the company should be held responsible for its content. may need to be covered. At the very least, you should pay more attention to the content you promote.
Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a tech group that backs Google, said Biden, Cruz and Hawley all criticized Section 230. He said there was disagreement about what to replace it with. Democrats want businesses to focus on content moderation, while Republicans are aware of anti-conservative biases and want to reduce restrictions across the board.
“There’s a common cause in the sense that they believe Section 230 is too broad, but at the end of the day, there’s no common cause in what they’re trying to achieve,” Jain said.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court case centers on allegations that YouTube’s actions contributed to the death of an American woman during the 2015 Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris by promoting certain videos. .the family of Nohemi GonzalesOne of the 130 people killed in a series of attacks in Paris carried out by the extremist Islamist group, known as ISIS, is suing the company under anti-terrorism laws. YouTube has said it should not be held responsible for these deaths.
A court is hearing a related case on Wednesday. Relatives of Naulath Arasaufa Jordanian citizen killed in an Islamist attack in Istanbul in 2017, accuses Twitter, Google and Facebook of encouraging and agitating the spread of Islamic extremist ideology. Does not address Section 230.
In the Google case, Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Fletcher, who represents the Biden administration, took a similar position. his briefs to what Cruz and other Republicans have adopted my briefsHolly is different briefs against google. Cruz and Holly are attorneys who used to be clerks in the High Court.
In all three briefs, the unlikely allies argue that Section 230 provides no immunity from claims related to recommended algorithms, although the legal arguments differ.
The lawsuit covers YouTube’s use of algorithms to suggest videos to users based on previously viewed content. YouTube’s active role goes beyond the kind of conduct Congress intended to protect in her 27-year-old law, lawyers for the bereaved family argue. Plaintiffs do not allege that YouTube was directly involved in the killings.
Recommendations have become an industry standard, so the risk is high. Instead of emphasizing chronological feeds and content vetted by people, apps like Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter rely on recommendation engines or algorithms to determine what people watch most often. became.
Biden attacked tech companies in his State of the Union address earlier this month, but he didn’t mention Section 230. editorial Last month, he called for reform, saying companies must be “responsible for the content they spread and the algorithms they use.” A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the administration’s position on the matter.
In an interview, Cruz said the bills to overhaul Section 230 may have some commonalities, but the Biden administration has little problem with “censoring” opinions that companies disagree with.
“Big Tech engages in blatantly anti-competitive activities. They enjoy monopoly profits, and they use that power to censor and silence the American public, among other things. I believe that we should use every tool at our disposal to stop it,” he said. He said.
Hawley said Section 230 was “almost entirely court-drafted” and that Congress did not intend it to provide sweeping immunity.
“I think this is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to untie some of the knots that the court itself has woven into the law here,” he said in an interview.
Mukund Rathi, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said it was disappointing that Biden went up against Google alongside Republicans, but not surprising from his perspective.
He warned of the far-reaching consequences if Google lost, pointing out that Reddit’s volunteer moderators, for example, could be held accountable for their actions. simply.
“The rhetoric is that these are bad powerful technology companies that are harming the public and causing a lot of harm and injustice,” Rathi said. , “It will hurt the common man.”
But even some people in the tech industry have come to the idea of cutting Section 230. Venture Capitalist Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook, said in an interview that the company should not receive immunity for its decision to amplify. specific content.
“This is the first time the Supreme Court has to stand up for the American people in the face of a technology industry that undermines public health, democracy and public safety,” he said.
