i and the with the students who we certainly that's just one more illness. that is kind of cool for my body. my flush running in this case to bring the soul says fun and enjoyable moods or helping to break down barriers squared awareness and change perceptions about mental illness. mike levels that will do 0. now funny, this bulletin day 3 is well underway, the window, the intent of championship, and carlos on cut, also showing why he's ranked number 1. 20 rose fanny. it has never made it past so frowned, but he is topsy this year, off to winning 5 tournament. so far in 2023, and he was on great farm and his 1st match against french fled jeremy shante dropping to 7 games on his way to a comfortable straight sets victory the

hello again. i'm elizabeth for ottoman doha, but the top stories on al jazeera funerals are being held for those killed 5 is really military during its to day assault on jeanine and the occupied westbank. at least 12 palestinians were killed. and more than $100.00 inches is ready. the military raids have left a trail of destruction engineering many homes and businesses in and around. the cities refugee camp has been destroyed, as well as military has launched as trucks. and the gaza strip to rockets were 5 from the enclave towards the southern israel. a ride simons were heard, and a number of places as rails has 5 rockets for 5 and often use active listen to this . he has a hundreds of african migrants is trying to, to, along the tennessee in libya and border they before somebody expelled from the city of fax, off to a to 1000000 man was stab to death on monday. is being heavy flashing between saddam's army and the power ministry rapids support forces of the capital costume.

the army says it's intensified operations and the neighboring city of on demand. but your opinion has refused to lift the sanctions on costs of l. on to the us government de escalate the tensions with ethnic stubs you envoy meals. lab logic met with sub, indeed antics on to boot kitchen, downgrade and the way, cuz the worst ethnic tensions and cost of a for a decade. to mention rain and flooding have code, at least 7 people in the pocket. bonnie says he over the whole disruptive lives in areas where residents already have been struggling to recover from last year's floods. the head of the u. a nuclear watchdog has 2 of the focus human nuclear power plant. stuff on groceries visit comes ahead of japan's plans to release treated radio act to want to enter the ocean. but china is condemning the saying the un report should not be used as a pos for the discharge. those other headlines on al jazeera, do stay with us. the stream is coming off next. thank you very much for watching.

the latest news, as it breaks deeply live here over the years have had to grow used to repeated sets or a tax to they say they've never before seen anything quite on this scale with detailed coverage. how was this allowed to happen? who's responsible and should safety standards be changed from around the world? ukrainian soldiers in this area said that they were going to try and exploit and push hard to hold off, loaded with wagner, played such a fundamental role. the hello and welcome to the stream. i'm at 17 today could a us supreme court case break the internet? we'll look at cases that are challenging what's known as section 230. the shield law that protects the social media and tech companies from being held accountable for harmful content posted online. the courts eventually rulings could have a major impact on the future of content, moderation, and internet 3,

speech. of course, we are always interested to hear what you have to say, just jump into our live youtube. chad, share your questions and comments and be part of the street. with us to discuss this is megan your yo, senior council, with the electronic privacy information center, also known as epic. and in san francisco, julie arono, executive director of internet sol, frontier for internet without borders. and in oakland, california, mcluhan's righty of the electronic frontier foundation. he's an attorney and legal fellow that focuses on free speech litigation. so many things to discuss here. a complicated topic for people who are not caught up. welcome to you all. i'm going to start with the basics. julie, what is section $230.00, a cabinet. that's a great pleasure to be here. well, it's important to remember that uh,

basically regulation of content moderation by social media, because it's, that's what it's about is restricted in the united states by the 1st amendment. on the one hand and section $230.00, which we're talking about. the 1st amendment limiting preventing government from making laws to force the interpretation of freedom of speech. but what does section to 30 says it says on the one hand uh, 230 see one says on the one hand that platforms are not publishers. mm hm. therefore, they're not liable for the speech on their platforms. and 2nd aspect of section 230 section 230 c 2, which is also referred, referred as a take down clause. and states that apply phones can we move any material they deem objectionable for any reason? so we do see that, that sums do have some right for you to, to decide why they want. and i, i guess when we talk about section 230 i'm, i'm really interested in how it's kind of shape the modern internet, if you will make it. and it was supposed to incentivize tech companies,

if i'm not mistaken to, to moderate their platforms. it's not what it's doing to do. that's exactly what it was meant to do. but almost immediately, courts misread section $230.00 to immunize companies for any decisions they made about publishing, 3rd party content. so since so much of what internet companies do can be categorized as publishing 3rd party content. section $230.00 has eliminated a lot of potential liability for tech companies. and as a result, it's incurred some pretty bad behaviors that disproportionately impact marginalized groups. so for instance, 2nd do 30 is a lot of tech companies to ignore me and even encourage harassment on abuse on their services. because companies claim that the harm comes entirely from 3rd party content. so like say our gosh, no, no, i was just getting it. sorry. i didn't meet you through it, but it's it's, it's almost a bit confusing. i want to try to clarify this

a bit. maybe more couldn't you can help us out. and then what was the big a little bit deeper. does section $230.00 give free the freedom to platforms, to kind of decide what content would be deemed um, you know, acceptable for their, their space as their platforms and what content they would moderate with with it without government intervention. so to be clear, section $230.00 was not meant to only incentivize platforms to take down content. it was meant to protect their content, moderation decisions in general. and some of the court cases that lead to section 230 involves people who are upset about what other internet users set about them on blogs and forums. they see those platforms in congress was worried that if people were able to see you because certain content was not taken down, not just what content was taken down, the platforms would not be able to evolve. and we would not have the flourishing internet that we have today. and there's no denying that there's a lot of problems with content on these platforms. but it's not just what's left up

because a lot of very good content, including in when we come, we're talking about the gonzales case, which involves content related to terrorism. when platforms start going after bad content, especially the big platforms that are using algorithms that are frankly not very well seen because it's hard to do for millions of pieces of content every day. you start taking down content, not just by terrorist, but about terrorist, not just terrorist propaganda, but from human rights organizations explaining what are the bad terrorist acts that have happened and what are we doing about it? those things get caught up and then that also then you know, on that on catching. yeah. already is now 3. okay. i platform a lot of so so, so you're saying it's necessary to protect platforms. you also brought up the gonzalez versus google case. and for those who don't know, it's a very specific type of online interaction with, with huge implications, which we're going to talk about. and it's, it's a, basically a lawsuit that stems from an assignment, state shooting, and parents that killed student know, i me, gonzalez in 2015. and her family is arguing that youtube heddrick recommended

videos by terrorist and therefore violated laws against aiding and abetting terrace . now, i want to get into all that before we do though, this video comment was shared with us by john berg mirror, who's legal director for public knowledge. and it raises some interesting questions that will lead us directly into the gonzalez versus google case. take, take a listen. i didn't, it's changed a lot since 1996 when congress passed section 230 section 2 thirds responsible for a lot of the growth of the internet and quite a bit of what people really liked about the internet and it isn't part responsible for what a lot of people don't like about the internet and it's completely reasonable to think that the law should be changed to meet today's environment. however, the supreme court is really not the correct avenue for that. especially the plaintiffs in this case are asking the court to rewrite the law and overturn decades of president in a way that i think would effectively overturn the law. and with around the baby with the bathwater. julie john says the supreme court is not the correct avenue for

that. what do you make about that? that's an interesting case is tank. it does highlight the fact that, uh, this, this, this case does raise issues that go way beyond recommender systems that go way beyond just google and that really interrogate, can we hold companies liable for recommending terrace content and then extremely fascinating question in it right now from our position would be difficult. first of all, it would require a very straight to agreement on what terrorism means. because today we're talking about isis and in the likes. but we also know that they are varies, varies understandings of what terry's organizations are. and this is very visible on another issue related to content, moderation, because platforms do have list of organizations that are forbidden and that are considered environment or tires. that's a one thing. the other thing is, if we were to change in the manner that is asked from the supreme court, if you were to change occurrence, we change it would basically ask those platforms to not only review the content

that is available, that's a video available, but also to review the recommend or the recommendations themselves. and this would give another, yet another a power to platforms not only to decide what the content is, but also to decide what you will be individually able to see. whereas out. yeah, i think the, the way should be like you're in the center. and so, so user friendly, i think go ahead. i think julie is pointing out something really important, which is that the way we draw lines in the free speech context has massive ramifications. not just for the, the bad people that were trying to target and the platforms were making concerning decisions here about their content. and they did their criticism for that. but drawing lines on speech is something that we this country under the 1st amendment. as julie mentioned earlier, has always been very wary of. this is a new context when it comes to free speech, but it's not a new issue. this is always been a question of. we have bad speech,

we have people using their speech to do or really terrible things to recruit people to terrible causes. but the solution is not to make that speech legal. the solution is for users to have more freedom, to create their own platforms where they can exercise their 1st amendment right, to say this kind of content, we want this kind of content we don't want. yeah, to section 230 is really just and training in law fundamental free speech principles that the 1st amendment already protects. and the supreme court should not mess with those principles. and i don't know if this is what john in his comment was getting out. but congress yeah, not be amending and weakening. so 230, so some kind of go ahead. yeah, megan, i mean, i know your organizations again, section 230. what do you make of americans argument there? well, where we're more for returning section 230 to its original, very narrow purpose at. but, you know, one of the things that really struck me about the oral argument in gonzalez was how the, just as a seem to think that their job was to engage in this policy making and making these

like uh, very nuanced decisions about what kind of liability there should be for algorithms and such. and 1st of all, that has very little to do with section 230 that has to do with the underlying liability statute which entirely agree with everything that the others have been saying about liability for terrorist or terrace related speech. but it doesn't mean that we need an overall section to 30 minutes. we need to limit these laws or knock down these laws that interfere with speech. and what the course should be doing instead is to what the courts are meant to do, which is interpret what's a shot. you says that's much simpler lot last week i had to do with that. okay, and it's so interesting. ask me if i could just please look and go ahead, go ahead. we can go ahead. i can give an example on this front. a few years ago, congress passed a law. that's the foster that week in section $230.00 for content that congress

thought would be related to sex trafficking. that seems like a reasonable goal, right? we do want sex traffic is terrible, and has many victims that ruins people's lives. so we want to limit sex traffic or is ability to use social media. but what ended up happening because of this broad big law that congress passed weakening, platform protections for content related to sexuality. what ended up happening is resources for sex workers, resources for victims of sex traffickers got taken down, sex workers who voluntarily wanted to use these platforms as a way to connect with their customers. because it's safer than standing on a street corner. they got kicked off of many platforms, platforms, sort of adopting broad policies, limiting all sorts of sexual content that had nothing to do with tech trafficking. so the point is that again, like the, the reason that congress passed section $230.00 is that it realize there is going to be bad content and there's going to be good cod. mm hm. and part of free speech

is platforms and users getting to decide for themselves. how are we going to draw a line between what we're going to leave up and what we're going to take down? that's not for the government, and that's not for plaintive springing law seats. that's not for the course to decide it's for us to decide. it's well so that, that makes sense to me. i want to take a moment here. i wanna get bringing some youtube, a chat, basically what's happening in our youtube chat live we have in here in thing, private companies limit 3 speeds all the time. this is about the government limiting freeze speeds. then we have anything. section 230 has allowed companies to ignore abuse and harassment on their search uh services. i see megan uniting from the periphery here in my high. and because of that, i kind of want to take a take a moment and let's listen to match sewers. matt is the president of the computer and communications industry association. and he's talking about what might happen from the perspective of tech companies. it's section $230.00 where to change if we,

if we ratchet up liability was you get to potential results. one, is it services over moderate over filter, over sanitize their content and, and to ensure that, you know, there's no potential risk of liability. and the other is that they throw up their hands and advocate responsibility. we want companies to moderate to take action against content that violates their terms, that makes their communities less safe. but they're not going to get every single call. right. and if courts penalize companies that miss needles and haystacks, that sends a signal don't look at all. and that turns the internet into a cesspool of dangers content to. i mean, i mean i couldnt isn't it already broken? i mean, it seems a bit confusing to me. i mean, the internet certainly certainly seems that way or, or a lot of your, a lot of problems with the internet and there is no getting around that. but the

problem is not section 230. look, i am no fan, i am no friend of the big tech companies. they have a lot of problems and they're doing a lot of things wrong. a lot of which we should criticize them for it to be clear. i'm not saying that there is no legal path or nothing the government can do no i, i appreciate the nuance and i know that it's, i know that it's not, you know, black and white. so yeah, let's give an example. like if we're concerned about the power of these big tech companies, there are other laws to do something about that. okay? when tech, when companies do something bad, what normally happens is consumers go to another company, that's how a free market is supposed to work. but that's not how it's working online, and that's because these companies have become so big and powerful. that's what any trust laws are for me. part of the reason they're so big and powerful is they have all of our data. so they're able to use their algorithms tourist in and, and so on. that's what consumer privacy laws are. so, so, so there are other written laws as well. yeah. and accountable without regulating. yeah. and, and julie, i know you want to jump in. i mean, obviously we all can agree, something needs to be done about this, you know,

specifically about harmful content online. but julie, i would imagine you don't think the big tech should be getting a pass as they have. no, no, they shouldn't. and i think one thing that this case is highlighting perfectly, it's the need for transparency on how i'm reading this works. because right now we are, we're making assumptions, a lot of assumptions that has been research uh, but most of them external. so that case would make a strong incentive to rat shed more transparency and oversight of algorithmic moderation and recommender systems. now, when it comes to how to deal with that, how to deal with the tech? well, certainly the way is not going to be governments having to tell us what should be on line, what should, and that's extremely dangerous. we all know it historically, yet that doesn't mean companies to get away. but at the same time, we have to recognize a rec limitations. here we are talking about section 230 for web 2 point oh platforms. so the, the facebook and instagram and the google's youtube,

sorry. and the likes. but we are on the, on the, on the brink of changing all that, we're already talking about immersive technologies and i'm thinking of course, here about medicare as well. so talking about the centralized platform, how do you do, how do you do moderation? how do you moderate recommender systems if any, is there any on decentralized back on these are extremely important questions right . been dealt with. yeah. and with this narrow angle, it doesn't allow us to have this bigger company. so meghan, i know you want to jump in and before you do, i want to share with our audience on twitter. i think this is, uh, yeah, this is your, your organization treating this out. i was ripping my hair out, especially at the beginning of the oral arguments, and it says, what people from your organization is that about what the job just says, god, and didn't get about algorithmic harm. now i think, you know, what that underlines for me is that i don't presume to understand the algorithms and i'm not trying to poke finance pruitt supreme court's knowledge per se. but i do have to say, you know,

algorithms are not so simple and it's not as if in this case, but tech company is kind of also telling us through the algorithm what we want to see. it's not like we're only looking for things right. is that fair way of putting it? right? it's the, it's not that your finding the content. what content is finding you, the tech companies targeting algorithms don't just show people what they want to see based on their own inputs. tech companies collect massive amounts of data on users, like you know, how they interact with the company's website and their location, and then they make inferences about their users. and then they recommend content based on those inferences. so what you see is like what the tech company thinks is most likely to keep you on a certain is so they can certainly more add, generates more revenue for that, right. and like, be effective that algorithm can be, you know, either they think, you know, a stream of cat videos won't keep you engaged. yeah. but, you know, also

a stream of extreme is content might keep some people and get to be fair. yeah. know most certainly, and it's, you know, and i'll go ahead go ahead. i couldn't say it was probably, i agree. i agree with megan on that. i, i don't like the, the framing that the tech companies are just trying to send us content that we want . i think that's uh awesome, giving them this being a little bit uh the, the truth is a little more profit oriented for one. i mean they, they are, as megan said, trying to sell us ad. they're trying to keep us on their platforms. we're, we're a captive audience and so it's not, they're not doing this out of the benevolence of their heart. but we do need to make sure there is speech protections for the many other smaller platforms that are trying to serve the public that are, you know, sometimes groups of people just get together. they want to create a website or for them, or a blog. and section 230 protected those people also, and they need to have reading room because and the google's lawyer acknowledge this, of the supreme court. fair enough if the supreme court weakens to 30. yeah,

go might say alive. it has lawyers. it right. a great lot of people working for that. they can fight last seats with sure it's the smaller platforms that are going to get hit. and so you know, again, i agree with megan is concerned about the way these companies are collecting the data the way they're designing these algorithms there for us in and again, the solution is not to attack the algorithm. the recommendation that there is a publishing act that's an active speech. we should go after the way they are collecting this data. because privacy is also an important right. and one that i want to talk about more it is and it isn't. we're going to try to get all this in, in the last few minutes of this important conversation. so if you just bear with me, i want to share with you a clip from february 21st. this is when the supreme court held oral arguments on the issue. take a listen. i can imagine the world where you are right, that none of this stuff gets production. and, you know, every other industry has to internalize the costs of his conduct. why is it that the tech industry gets a pass a little bit unclear?

on the other hand, i mean, we're a court, we really don't know about these things that we, you know, these are not like the 9 greatest experts on the internet. there is no word called recommendation on youtube. the website. it is videos that are posted by 3rd parties that is solely information provided by another. you can say any posting is a recommendation. any time anyone publishes something you can be said is a recommendation, whether the videos just don't appear out of thin air. they appear pursuant to the algorithms that your clients have and those algorithms must be targeted to something. and they're taught that targeting, i think it's fairly called a recommendation, and that is google's i guess, watching that or hearing that i should say, megan, i'm wondering. i mean, so many questions come to mind, right? like what role do algorithms play in promoting extreme is content specifically or,

or causing real world harm. but then if we go back to the profit question, i mean many people seem to think that algorithms are somehow inherently more neutral than human beings, right? that human beings might have bias, but in algorithms design not to is that true? i mean, i think your statement, mcclure and about, and it's just my personal opinion, just having covered tech companies and it's designed aren't. these apps aren't designed for free expression or all the loft, the wording that the, you know, the companies put out there. i think they're designed for profit. and why is that such an important part of this debate? megan and when we look to the next steps, like what are the solutions in your mind, make it so that's exactly correct that the algorithms are designed for a particular purpose, and they are to make a profit from the company, and that they're designed 5 people and people have biases, they have objectives as a boost. these wind up in the algorithms. so yeah, it's a visual misconception that algorithms are neutral and anyway,

there's no such thing as a neutral arrow algorithm. so the thing is that, i'm sorry, please. no, no, no, i'm so sorry. it's just i want to try to get into my phone. i'm actually because i interrupted if i, if i may, i want to get in the privacy law aspect of this. so it to do that. i want to share with you a video comment that was sent to us by caitlin vogue. then we'll come back to me. we'll come take a listen. section 230 also encourages services to voluntarily moderate content like hate speech and does information by ensuring that those who moderate are not at create a risk of liability. then those who don't. but section 2, thirties, liability shield is not absolute, and it doesn't apply to claims that have nothing to do with 3rd party speech like those based on competition or privacy law. comprehensive federal privacy legislation could address some of the harms that are caused by providers collection of users, personal data, and the algorithmic recommendation of contents like that issue and gonzales. so what kind of, how could anti trust and privacy law actually address the content moderation

problem? what do you make of what kaitlin had said there? i think caitlin is, is very on point here and i add, this is really important because when we talk about things like bias and profit, those are, those can be bad incentives, but they do not eliminate protection for speech. the new year times is biased. it's pretty clear from it that a tory old, it also makes profit that's it's a company. mm hm. and it's also very clearly, it has free speech rights about what it says and how it says it, how it appeals to readers and so on. and caitlin's, right, that rather than going after, and people have been concerned about the dominance of traditional media for a very long time. but the government has never been allowed to go after their speech rights. so if we're worried that google has this huge platform where everyone's going and it's hard for people to leave because of its algorithms, let's look at whether it's violated anti trust laws. if the reasons that it's algorithms are so effective and are recommending content that people are losing people in and frankly, it's hard to leave the social media subjective. and part of the reason for that is

they have designed these algorithms so effectively based on all of the data they've collected on us, right? so then let's do something about the with the incent with the objective of earning money. okay, well we have the last word, i'm going to come to julie, go ahead. can we? can we, can we briefly discuss this? yes, this has been done in the european union where the digital services act right now prevents platforms or targeting minors for instance. but beyond that, when we talk about section 230, we should think about the broader context as well. any decision that will be made will have in a incredible import in international impact given the interconnectedness of the states that the space that we're talking about. we could end up in a space where, what is allowed in the united states becomes totally forbidden in other countries. how do we reconcile these as an internet community, how to platforms, reco savvy? that's a problem. but really, the question is, how do we continue to make sure that the internet social media space is allow for speech including speech that we disagree with, and including sticks that help us understand the world and have a today?

all right, well, you know, i, i have so many more questions for you 3 a, but i want to thank you 1st and foremost for joining us on this show. that's all the time we have for today. thanks for watching. thanks for joining us and see you next, the the dreamy of some little more. amazing. how about some disney magic?

one can go one big one goal was to find an incredible phase. then you can just take these 3 using this similar feed more and more visit a couple of dot com, ask like a narrative from african perspectives which are the want him to do what came up proper from, according to show documentary spine, african filmmakers have been on the to on for over 20 is future with fish from the ship and the queen from nigeria. new series of africa, direct on colleges here in a world where the news never ends. understanding what's behind the headlines is more important than ever. it takes listening to the people behind the news and to

the journalist for reporting their stories except intimacy that makes every international story local at heart. i'm only can be that host of the take a daily news podcast powered by the login reporting of al jazeera. find us where ever you get your podcasts. the the, [000:00:00;00] the color there i misspelled the attain. this is and use our line from our headquarters here in the coming up in the next 60 minute. anger and defiance and jeanine thousands of people attend the funerals of the 12 palestinians