Tech Talk: Google v. Gonzalez & Twitter v. Tamneh — Talking Tech with Caitin Vogus & Jonathan Stray

Welcome to Tech Talk. Bye. C.D.T. Welcome to CDT's Tech Talk, where we dish on tech and internet policy while also explaining

what these policies mean to our daily lives. I'm Jamal Magby and it's time to talk tech. Before we get started, we want to let you know that the discussion you are about to hear was recorded before the US Supreme Court's recent decisions on the crucial online free

expression cases, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Tamna. Nevertheless, we've chosen to release this episode now because there's so much great information about the potential risk to users' free speech that is more relevant than ever.

And while the legal landscape may have shifted since this recording, the principles of of protecting free expression and fostering an open and inclusive digital environment are not going away. In the Gonzales and Tamna opinions, the Supreme Court dodged any detailed consideration of

Section 230 or the role of recommendation algorithms in enabling access to online speech. But we can expect that those topics will be back before the court, before long. So let's dive into this discussion and keep advocating for the preservation of free speech in the online world.

The Center for Democracy and Technology, along with six other technologies with expertise in online recommendation systems, found an amicus brief in the case of Gonzales versus Google. The brief urges the United States Supreme Court to hold that Section 230's liability

Shield applies to the claims against interactive computer service providers based on their recommendation of third-party content because those claims treat providers as publishers. Here to talk a little bit more about the amicus brief is Jonathan Stray, Senior Scientist at the Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI and Caitlin Vogus, Deputy Director of

of CDTs for Expression Project. Jonathan and Caitlin, thank you so much for joining us here today. Thanks for having us Jamal.

Thanks, it's a pleasure. Yeah, happy to have you guys. So to kick us off, Caitlin, would you explain what Gonzalez case is all about?

How is it related to another case the court has heard on this term, specifically Twitter versus Tamra? Gonzalez is a case about Section 230

and the recommendation of user-generated content. So by way of background, Section 230 is a 1996 law that gives online service providers that host other people's speech a shield from liability

for the speech of their users. So for example, Section 230 means that if a Facebook user says something defamatory about me, I can sue that user for defamation,

but I can't sue Facebook. Facebook is shielded from liability by Section 230. And in Gonzales, what the court is looking at specifically is whether Section 230 applies to content

that a provider has recommended. The facts of the case are really tragic. The plaintiffs are family members of people who were killed in ISIS terrorist attacks,

and they've sued a couple of online platforms. And what they're arguing in Zalas is that YouTube violated a law called the Anti-Terrorism Act by recommending

ISIS content to its users. Now they aren't claiming that the terrorists who killed their family members used YouTube were actually inspired by YouTube content specifically, but more their argument is that

YouTube is a tool that ISIS uses to recruit and spread its terrorist content and that it therefore should be liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act or ATA. And Google has responded, they own YouTube, and they've said, we are actually immune from this claim because of Section 230.

Twitter Vitaum, which you also asked about, is similar. In that case, family members are suing Twitter, and they're arguing that Twitter or violated the ATA by again recommending ISIS content. But the difference is that because of the way the courts below decided the cases,

Section 230 isn't the issue in Twitter v. Tomna. Instead in that case what the court is considering is whether Twitter's recommendation of content is enough to make it potentially liable under the ATA itself. So in other words, assuming that Section 230 doesn't apply, what is a plaintiff need

to claim in order to make out a case against an online provider for violating the ATA? So basically Gonzales is the case about recommendations in section 230 and Twitter, Vita is the case about recommendations and the anti-terrorism act. And CDT filed amicus briefs in both cases because we wanted to make sure the court

understood how its decisions could potentially impact online free expression. And even depending on how the court rules could potentially limit free speech online. And saying that, uh, you mentioned that platforms fear of liability could limit free speech. Could you explain this a little more?

But why would platforms fear this or fear of liability? So Congress originally enacted Section 230 in part because it wanted to make sure that the internet was a place where regular people could speak freely and find information. And the idea behind the law was that by limiting the potential liability for these

online hosts of user speech, you reduce their incentives to remove user-generated content. The reason is because if a host is worried that they might be legally liable for the things that their users say, they might say, I'm not going to host user-generated content at all.

That's too risky. I'm not going to do it. Or they might host user-generated content but really aggressively limit or moderate it. We know that content moderation is imperfect.

We know it often leads to the over removal of totally innocuous or even beneficial speech. Even if platforms get it right, 99% of the time, which they probably don't, because Because there are billions of pieces of content posted online every day, even that 1% error rate can lead to the removal of a lot of speech.

And this can have disproportionate impacts on people from marginalized groups, especially for example, the LGBTQ community or women or people with disabilities and other speakers like that. And so we don't want a legal regime that incentivizes providers to even more aggressively