I remember reading about this case some time back and an article “recommended” to me by Google brought it back to my attention. (AI developing irony?) See: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...to-their-knees
The case is whether an “internet” publisher despite section 230 of the USA Communications Decency act can be held liable for something that arises from their recommendations. There is a link in the article to the filing.
(Section 230WP means they are not responsible for what a user posts on their platform, and that is pretty much settled law.)
The USA Supreme Court has now agreed to hear this case.
My gut feeling is that they will side with the current judgement by the lower courts i.e. section 230 protects them from consequences of their recommending users’ content.
The case is whether an “internet” publisher despite section 230 of the USA Communications Decency act can be held liable for something that arises from their recommendations. There is a link in the article to the filing.
(Section 230WP means they are not responsible for what a user posts on their platform, and that is pretty much settled law.)
The USA Supreme Court has now agreed to hear this case.
My gut feeling is that they will side with the current judgement by the lower courts i.e. section 230 protects them from consequences of their recommending users’ content.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/ivwSLFG
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire