Session may soon be over for the ‘big tech shield’ of US law

The US Supreme Court building (File Image)

What protected internet giants for long 26 years, may soon be logged out of practice as the US Supreme Court plans to revoke Section 230 after two cases of terrorism were found to be propagated by tech platforms.

In two hearings on Tuesday, the SC judges will listen to the arguments of the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American student who was shot in Paris by Islamist militants in 2015, that Google has "helped" the ISIS by publishing its propaganda.

Another case, scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, the family of Nawras Alassaf, a Jordanian killed in an ISIS attack in Turkey, claims that Twitter provided material support to the perpetrators by failing to block extremist content on its platform.

What is Section 230 and why is it a problem today?

To put this into context, the law, known as Section 230, was brought to existence in 1996 when the internet was taking its baby steps and was largely unregulated. The Section 230 aimed to protect the builders of the internet from lawsuits against them for inappropriate content, and allow the tech innovation to thrive and grow in the hands of their makers.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher,” said the legislation, thus absolving tech players from the responsibility for content that came from an outside party.

It should be kept in mind that the Section 230 did not give absolute immunity to tech providers too. Content was being monitored but was largely limited to moderating sexual content.

Although this leeway eventually freed the way for the rise of Google search and led to the social media revolution, the protection also fuelled world conversation on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or YouTube without the tech players worrying about a lawsuit by parties offended by controversial pictures, videos or micro-blogs.

After years of escalating cybercrimes, misinformation, hate speeches, propagation of anti-social activities, and other scandals on social media through ads and other channels, opponents to the Section 230 now want to see these platforms being held responsible.

Granted, the big tech companies are hiring specialists massively to moderate their platforms, retain the goodwill of audience and avoid government scrutiny. But it is still a challenge to block offensive content from billions of users.

More details of the showdown

Section 230 is also being called for reconsideration by 28 state governments in the US, including Alabama and California. “What was enacted as a narrow protection from defamation liability has become an all-purpose licence to exploit and profit from harmful third-party conduct,” read a brief from several of those states.

However, from the viewpoint of the big tech industry, upending Section 230 could be disruptive. Needless to say, they are firmly opposing the arguments.

"If this case alters the Federal law, companies are likely to respond in one of two ways to protect themselves legally," said Matt Schruers, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

Tech firms like Reddit, Twitter, Microsoft and other non-enterprise entities have filed letters to the court arguing that making them accountable for algorithmic recommendations can curb free speech and disrupt internet content.

“The entire Reddit platform is built around users ‘recommending’ content for the benefit of others by taking actions like upvoting and pinning content,” read the filing by Reddit and volunteering Reddit moderators. “There should be no mistaking the consequences of petitioners’ claim in this case: their theory would dramatically expand internet users’ potential to be sued for their online interactions.”

The court is expected to come to a decision by June 30.