The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in two cases that
raise questions about liability shields afforded to tech companies under
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The cases are Gonzalez v. Google
and Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh. The Counter Extremism Project (CEP) and CEP Senior
Advisor Dr. Hany Farid have filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the
petitioners in Gonzalez, urging the Court to reverse a favorable ruling for
Google in the Ninth Circuit, which applied a broad interpretation of the law in
question.





<[link removed]>
<[link removed]>



Tech & Terrorism: Section 230 Liability Shield To Face Scrutiny This Week At
U.S. Supreme Court



(New York, N.Y.) — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week
in two cases that raise questions about liability shields afforded to tech
companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The cases are
Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh. The Counter Extremism Project
(CEP) and CEP Senior AdvisorDr. Hany Farid
<[link removed]> have filed an amicus
curiae brief in support of the petitioners inGonzalez, urging the Court to
reverse a favorable ruling for Google in the Ninth Circuit, which applied a
broad interpretation of the law in question.



In Gonzalez, the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student killed
in November 2015 during an ISIS attack at a Paris restaurant, contends that
Google-owned YouTube aided in ISIS’s recruitment by recommending ISIS videos
through its algorithms and is therefore not shielded from legal liability. In
Taamneh, the Court will consider the liability of online platforms that fail to
impede use by terrorists under the Anti-Terrorism Act.



CEP has long advocated for reform, calling for changes to Section 230 to
remove blanket immunity for harmful material, such as terrorist content, posted
by third parties, and for the liability shield protecting platforms that
knowingly or recklessly deploy recommendation algorithms to promote terrorist
content to be lifted as well.



In its amicus curiae brief, CEP and Dr. Hany Farid argue and cite public
reporting and Google’s own statements that Google’s recommendation algorithms
are not “content-neutral” as the company maintains and that it “pushed ISIS
videos onto the devices of terrorists” to monetize content. Further, without
the benefit of being granted discovery on Google’s recommendation algorithms,
it is impossible for the Court “to understand and realize the extent to which
Google has intentionally adjusted its YouTube recommendation algorithms” and
“reveal the business relationship between Google’s advertising placement
algorithms and its recommendation algorithm, and how these two systems
aggressively monetize or demonetize categories selected by Google management.”



To read the amicus curiae brief, please click here
<[link removed]>
.



In March 2020, Dr. Farid co-authored a study, A Longitudinal Analysis Of
YouTube’s Promotion Of Conspiracy Videos
<[link removed]>
, that analyzed YouTube’s policies and efforts towards curbing its
recommendation algorithm’s tendency to spread divisive conspiracy theories.
After reviewing eight million recommendations over 15 months, they determined
the progress YouTube claimed in June 2019 to have reduced the amount of time
its users watched recommended videos including conspiracies by 50 percent—and
in December 2019 by 70 percent—did not make the “problem of radicalization on
YouTube obsolete nor fictional.” The study ultimately found that a more
complete analysis of YouTube’s algorithmic recommendations showed the
proportion of conspiratorial recommendations are “now only 40 percent less
common than when YouTube’s measures were first announced.”



###





Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>