Supreme Court To Consider whether Google Can Be Held Liable For Content Recommendations

Visit us at lawshelf.com to earn college credit for only $20 a credit! We now offer multi-packs, which allow you to purchase 5 exams for the price of 3, or 10 exams for the price of 5, and are thus the most efficient and affordable way to earn college credit with LawShelf courses. LawShelf courses have been evaluated and recommended for college credit by the National College Credit Recommendation Service (NCCRS), and may be transferred to over 1,500 colleges and universities. We also have established a growing list of partner colleges that guarantee LawShelf credit transfers, including Excelsior University, Thomas Edison State University, University of Maryland Global Campus, Purdue University Global, Touro University Worldwide, and many more!
On November 13, 2015, the Islamic State terrorist group carried out a wave of terrorist attacks in the city of Paris, killing 130 people. Among the dead was Nohemi Gonzalez, a US citizen studying abroad in France. Members of Gonzalez’s family sued Google, the parent company of RUclips, under the federal Anti-Terrorism statute. In our latest blog, we discuss this case that is now pending before the Supreme Court, as well as the potential ramifications of what the court's interpretation of immunity under Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code could mean for third-party content platforms and the future of the internet as we know it.

[@LangZyneJr]

Big tech should not have legal indemnity and also be able to curate content. This leaves them entirely unaccountable. They have the ability to censor, by simply not promoting what they don’t want the general public to see or hear. This allows them massive control over public opinion and the cultural zeitgeist. Big tech needs to be reformed.

[@Rebelistic]

This is a pretty petty lawsuit if we're being honest.

[@Dead8Head]

Couldn't agree more

[@jessieessex]

I think the implications are more far reaching than we might see at first glance. It stands to determine where the liability lies and therefore who is responsible. It sets a precedent and therefore a guideline for future laws. Quite honestly, it would be wonderful if our personal data wasn’t more valuable than we are as human beings.

[@LangZyneJr]

How so?

[@ZX-Gear]

No. Google should lose.

[@jessieessex]

They make money off of recommendations and are therefore responsible for recommending them. They don’t have to police the content, they can let people find it organically and stop wildly advertising in as many places as they possibly can. It’s greed that is at the bottom of this, at the core. If there is a wave of civil suits after this, then the businesses will have to return what they gained when they set aside morals and humanity for power and status. There is no business here, it’s a World Wide Web.

[@sun_serega]

Define "finding content organically".

[@blitzofchaosgaming6737]

@@sun_serega go to your subscription page. There ya go.

[@gyhgamer0]

if there's no algorithm then there are no videos to be recommended imagine that opening up RUclips and the list of recommended is empty you have to search everything that would be horrible

[@izanami_no_mikoto]

@@gyhgamer0 not really

[@pantethine66]

what about finding new content.