The statute came under scrutiny after a lawsuit was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old US citizen who was killed by ISIS in Paris in November 2015. Gonzalez’s family argues that that algorithms should be considered editorial content that is not protected against liability Section 230, and so Google-owned YouTube violated the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) when its algorithms recommended ISIS-related content to users.

There are interesting developments happening in the supreme court this week.

- Google currently takes no legal responsibility when illegal content ends up on YouTube because they didn't upload it and Section 230 of the statute protects them. It's not editorial content, which would not be protected, it's user content.... but that's not what is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

- The Supreme Court is reviewing if that protection should apply to algorithms that RECOMMEND illegal content. While it makes sense that YouTube did not upload the content, they are actively promoting it and suggesting it to users via algorithm, which is editorial behavior.

- Joe Biden's administration has signaled they will back REMOVING Section 230 protections from the act of suggesting or promoting illegal content, like the terrorist videos YouTube hosted and recommended last year.

- It's user generated content, yes, but the act of promoting or suggesting it is editorial behavior. The act was written before algorithms began suggesting what people should watch, it needs to be reviewed by the supreme court anyway.

- YouTube would have to vet the content better before recommending it. Big Tech would rather just keep the protection, of course. "You didn't upload it, no problem, but stop recommending anything you haven't vetted" is what the argument boils down to.

[computerworld.com...]