US Supreme Court could change the Internet – 02/26/2023 – Ronaldo Lemos

Anyone who complains about “judicial activism” in Brazil should take a look at Gonzalez v. Google, which the US Supreme Court is ruling on. This case could literally change the history of the internet as we know it. He could revoke or significantly change one of the legal devices that allowed the accelerated (and disorderly) growth of Internet companies in the US.

This is the so-called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, existing since 1996. According to this section of the Act, content and hosting providers (such as Google, Facebook and many others) cannot be legally held responsible for the posting of your users. This piece of law created a huge immunity for content platforms (which have a few exceptions). The user can lie, defame and even post radicalized inflammatory content. The platform, however, cannot be sued for this.

Everything can change now because of the Gonzalez family. They are the parents of Nohemi Gonzalez, a young woman who was murdered in 2015 at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris. The family’s argument against Google is that the terrorists were radicalized by watching YouTube videos. The platform’s algorithms would have specifically selected extreme videos, which were offered to terrorists, until they left for action.

The Gonzalez family argues that at the time Section 230 was formulated, there was no ability for content to be selected by algorithms. Because of this, platforms should be able to be held accountable today for content they automatically promote.

Sounds simple. But it is not. The repeal of Section 230 is aimed at the big platforms, but it could hit all initiatives on the net, large and small. It is not by chance that representatives of Wikipedia entered the action strongly asking the Supreme Court to keep Section 230 unchanged. If it is modified, Wikipedia itself could be held responsible for any content posted on it. With that, it has the chance to become unfeasible.

Many people see the change in Section 230 as limiting the power of content platforms. However, in practice, the plan can backfire. If platforms can be sued for each user’s content, in practice, they will start to massively remove risky content. When in doubt, the content is removed, precisely so as not to generate the possibility of subsequent lawsuits and indemnities. And who decides what goes out or stays on the air? The platforms themselves. They will have their discretion expanded to arbitrate in first and last place what should leave or stay.

The case in the US illustrates the importance of the Marco Civil da Internet, our law that deals with the subject in Brazil in a different way. According to the Civil Rights Framework, who ultimately decides whether a content should be on the air or not is the Judiciary. The platform is held responsible to the extent that it fails to comply with the commands of the Judiciary, which, in Brazil, has its capacity to act preserved.

It’s over – Feeling that the Internet should not be regulated

Already – New laws regulating the internet such as the DSA (Digital Services Act) in Europe

It’s coming – Influence of the DSA and the Supreme Court decision on how Brazil will regulate the Internet

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.