YouTube as a terrorist helper? This lawsuit could change the internet

It’s all about this

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that could upend the internet as we know it. It is about the scope of a legal American regulation from the 1990s, the online services exempt from liability for the publication of content created by others. The rule known as “Section 230” is considered an important protective shield against lawsuits, under which platforms such as Google, Facebook or Twitter have been able to develop into giants over the past two decades.

The lawsuit

The nine Supreme Court justices held a hearing on Tuesday about a case involving Google’s video platform YouTube. It is a complaint filed by the family of an American student who died in the November 2015 terrorist attacks by the Islamic State (IS) terror militia in Paris.

She wants to hold YouTube liable because the platform’s algorithms recommended IS propaganda videos to users.

First impression: Richter rather reserved

Based on the first impression of the process, it seems unlikely that anything will actually change in the existing rules.

Judge Clarence Thomas stressed that the same algorithms are used that serve users harmless content, such as videos about preparing a rice dish. For this reason too, he could not understand the charge that the position was to assist and incite terrorism.

The plaintiffs’ arguments

Plaintiff’s attorney Eric Schnapper also argued that the platform was liable because it generated the small preview images – so-called “thumbnails” – when the videos were shown. This means that YouTube itself is involved in content creation and falls outside the protective framework of Article 230, he said. Google attorney Lisa Blatt countered that the thumbnails were just recordings of videos made by others.

AI raises new questions for the future

At the same time, the judges hinted that the use of artificial intelligence software – such as the technology behind the text engine ChatGPT on Microsoft’s search engine Bing – could change the situation for online platforms in the future. Judge Neil Gorsuch asked whether a service with text generated by such software would itself become a producer of content not covered by Section 230 protection. (con/sda/dpa)