February 11, 2023
The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could change the internet as we know it called Gonzalez vs. Google.
This is a deep dive video – so if you don’t have time to watch this now, favorite it and come back to it later. I promise this will impact you and the way we all watch videos online.
Before I explain the case you have to understand the 26-word law that some say “created the internet.” This law allows all of us to post on the internet and experience it the way we do.
Let me take you back to ancient times. Way back to 1996.
That’s when Congress passed the Communications Decency Act. At that time if we were lucky we could dial up internet.
There was no Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or TikTok. But we could talk to our friends on AOL instant messenger. There was no Google and the iPhone wouldn’t be invented for another 11 years.
Ugh…let’s get out of the 90s.
So think about the 90s when I tell you what congress passed in the communications decency act. It included one section that deals with the internet. Section 230. And it says these 26 words.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
What? Basically, what it means is internet hosting platforms of all kinds are protected from being sued because of the content other people post on those platforms (of course there are exceptions for criminal activity). Now a lot has changed about the internet since 1998 but section 230 still stands strong today. And because internet platforms generally can’t be held liable, social media companies allow all of us to post what we want. Plus — the algorithms recommend that third-party content the way the companies want us to see. In recent years of course, community guidelines have given users some guardrails, but for the most part, we can comment on blogs, we can leave reviews on yelp, we can post to social media and that’s all because of section 230. The companies basically know they can’t be sued for what we say on their platform. And the courts have repeatedly upheld this law in favor of the companies.
And that brings me to Gonzalez vs Google.
Gonzalez is Nohemi Gonzalez a 23-year-old American who lost her life in the Paris terrorist attacks in 2015. Her family sued google saying through its algorithms and because of the protections under section 230, YouTube recommended videos that aided the Islamic State in promoting its propaganda.
Google says upending section 230 would harm free expression, it would make the internet less safe and would probably cause all platform providers to rethink all of our ability to post online. They say those recommendations are what “makes it possible to find the needles in humanity’s largest haystack.”
The question the justices have to answer is – are those content recommendations also protected under section 230? Or can the internet companies be held liable for those? The slope between providing the access to content that you’re not liable for and promoting that content is very slippery.
Both the lower federal court and the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled denied hearing this case because of section 230 protections. But after holding off hearing a section 230 case for decades — now the justices will hear this one.
Oral arguments in Gonzalez vs Google are scheduled for February 21st.
Read the filings for Gonzalez vs Google here.
Read Google’s statement on this case here.
