In the case of Gonzalez v Google, will the Supreme court decide that Section 203(c)(l) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Google's targeted recommendations? Here is the question presented.
This market resolves Yes if the consequence of the court's decision is that Google is not liable for harm caused by its recommendations. It resolves No if Google could be held liable because section 230(c)(l) does not grant them immunity. If the decision remands the case to a lower court, this resolves N/A.
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน173 | |
| 2 | แน27 | |
| 3 | แน22 | |
| 4 | แน22 | |
| 5 | แน21 |
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/supreme-court-twitter-google-social-media/index.html
Decided in favor of google
In a brief order, the court dismissed the case against Google with only a brief opinion, leaving intact a lower court ruling that held Google is immune from a lawsuit that accuses its subsidiary YouTube of aiding and abetting terrorism.
"The case was filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American woman who was studying in Paris when she was killed in an ISIS attack there in 2015. Their lawsuit alleges that Google, which owns YouTube, violated the Antiterrorism Actโs ban on aiding and abetting terrorism by (among other things) recommending ISIS videos to users through its algorithms, thereby aiding ISISโs recruitment."
Seems so indirect and tenuous a connection to the specific damages that they probably shouldn't even have standing to sue. And aside from that there are first amendment issues with going around suing anyone who might have propagated speech that might have contributed to terrorism. And on the specific facts here, google's algorithms are very much oriented towards deradicalizing people, but even if they weren't they shouldn't be liable for hosting speech of the fellow-travellers of a terrorist. I'm expecting google to thoroughly win this because scotus is very strong on the first amendment.
@VrindavanSanap He probably makes more money from YouTube than he does from being an actual lawyer, so he probably doesn't need to look professional any more ๐คฃ