A pair of lawsuits headed to the US Supreme Court this week threaten to deal a major blow to Big Tech by really messing up your feed.
Driving the news: The court will hear arguments in two cases that revolve around Section 230, a law that gives tech companies immunity for third-party content posted on their platform.
- Both lawsuits argue that videos uploaded by ISIS terrorist groups on Google and Twitter inspired deadly attacks.
- The plaintiffs say that the tech platforms should be held liable —not for hosting the content, but because they “recommended” the videos to users in their feeds.
Why it matters: A verdict for the plaintiffs would be a massive disruption for social media platforms, all of which now have recommended content at the core of their business model.
- Tech companies have built sophisticated algorithms to serve users a steady diet of images and video that’s most likely to keep them scrolling, swiping, and (most importantly) tapping on ads.
- If Section 230 is overturned or limited, tech companies would be exposed to an avalanche of lawsuits over content recommended in their feeds.
One factor that may set off alarm bells for Big Tech: While the lower courts have consistently sided with the tech companies and ruled to protect Section 230, Justice Clarence Thomas—a powerful conservative justice on a right-tilting court—has criticized the law in the past.
What’s next: Both cases are likely to be decided this summer—you may only be months away from being freed from the addictive clutches of the feed (or denied its dopamine-triggering delights, depending on your point of view).