On May 18, the US Supreme Court gave its verdict on the Gonzalez v Google case holding Google not liable saying that, “plaintiffs’ allegations failed to state a viable claim in any event.” The allegations they refer to are that YouTube (the video-sharing platform owned by Google) aided and abetted the 2015 ISIS Attack in Paris by allegedly recommending ISIS recruitment videos on its platform. In the same vein, the Supreme Court also gave the same verdict on Twitter vs Taamneh where, Twitter, Facebook, and Google were accused of knowingly allowing ISIS and its supporters to use their platforms. Why it matters: This case was butting heads with Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act with the petitioners arguing that the safe harbor provision should not apply to algorithm-driven recommendations knowingly and systemically made by a platform. (For a quick refresher: Section 230(c)(1) protects websites and platforms from being held liable for unlawful third-party content online). Experts suggest that if internet companies are forced to consider liability risks with everything posted on their platforms, it could limit the kinds of content users have access to online. Whatever happens on the United States' Internet has ramifications across the rest of the world—so, this judgment, which upholds people’s right to access information on the internet, could serve as a benchmark for similar cases that crop up elsewhere. What did the Supreme Court say: On Twitter v Taamneh: The Supreme Court said that none of the plaintiff’s allegations show that the defendants (Google,…
