
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
On February 21, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that risks reshaping the internet for the worse. In Gonzalez, plaintiffs have sued Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleging that YouTube’s algorithms aided terrorist recruitment by helping would‐be terrorists find radicalizing videos. They argue that YouTube’s video “recommendations” are distinct from publishing and thus unprotected by Section 230. If accepted, their argument would expose many websites’ algorithmic matching features to litigation. This will be the first time the Supreme Court interprets Section 230, the bedrock intermediary liability shield that enables the modern internet, and whatever the court decides will echo throughout the web.
Join our panelists Thomas Berry, Jess Miers, Nicole Saad Bembridge, and Gabrielle Shea for a discussion of the oral arguments in Gonzalez, moderated by Will Duffield. We will explain the implications of the case and attempt to read the tea leaves of justices’ reactions and remarks.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
4.5
115115 ratings
On February 21, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that risks reshaping the internet for the worse. In Gonzalez, plaintiffs have sued Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleging that YouTube’s algorithms aided terrorist recruitment by helping would‐be terrorists find radicalizing videos. They argue that YouTube’s video “recommendations” are distinct from publishing and thus unprotected by Section 230. If accepted, their argument would expose many websites’ algorithmic matching features to litigation. This will be the first time the Supreme Court interprets Section 230, the bedrock intermediary liability shield that enables the modern internet, and whatever the court decides will echo throughout the web.
Join our panelists Thomas Berry, Jess Miers, Nicole Saad Bembridge, and Gabrielle Shea for a discussion of the oral arguments in Gonzalez, moderated by Will Duffield. We will explain the implications of the case and attempt to read the tea leaves of justices’ reactions and remarks.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
4,226 Listeners
967 Listeners
597 Listeners
2,243 Listeners
29 Listeners
2,810 Listeners
1,498 Listeners
90 Listeners
1,992 Listeners
86 Listeners
801 Listeners
720 Listeners
195 Listeners
680 Listeners
364 Listeners
223 Listeners
94 Listeners