DID YOUTUBE ALGORITHM SPUR ISIS KILLING? COURT WEIGHS LIABILITY
WASHINGTON — In its first case testing the law that’s credited with helping create the modern internet, the Supreme Court seemed unlikely Tuesday to side with a family wanting to hold Google liable for the death of their daughter in an ISIS terrorist attack.
But the justices also signaled that they are wary of Google’s assertions that a 1996 law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — affords the tech giant, Twitter, Facebook and other companies farreaching immunity from lawsuits over their targeted recommendations of videos, documents and other content.
“We really don’t know about these things,” Justice Elena Kagan said of herself and her colleagues, several who smiled at the description. “You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.”
Congress, not the court, should make any changes to a law passed early in the internet age, Kagan said.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of six conservatives on the court, agreed with his liberal colleague.
“Isn’t it better,” Kavanaugh asked, to keep things the way they are and “put the burden on Congress to change that?”
The case stems from the death of Nohemi Gonzalez, a college student from California, in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015.
Members of her family were in court to listen to arguments about whether they can sue Google-owned YouTube for helping the Islamic State spread its message and attract new recruits in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Lower courts sided with Google.
The justices used a variety of examples to probe what YouTube does when it uses algorithms to recommend videos. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested what YouTube is doing isn’t “pitching something in particular to the person who’s made the request” but a “21st century version” of what has been taking place for a long time, putting together a group of things the person might want to look at.
Justice Clarence Thomas asked whether YouTube uses the same algorithm to recommend rice pilaf recipes and terrorist content. Yes, he was told.
Lower courts have broadly interpreted Section 230 to protect the industry. But critics argue the companies haven’t done nearly enough to police and moderate content.