2023年2月7日

美國最高法院即將就一項關鍵的互聯網責任法做出裁決，這可能會顛覆商業格局——不僅對大型平台如此，對擔心大規模動蕩的中小型公司也是如此。驅動新聞:本月晚些時候，最高法院將聽取岡薩雷斯訴穀歌案的口頭辯論，該案對科技平台如何托管和推廣用戶發布的內容具有重大影響。此案的焦點是1996年的《通信規範法案》(Communications Decency Act)第230條，該法案規定，公司不對用戶發布的內容負責。法院將決定該法律是否涵蓋公司通過算法選擇和排名內容的選擇，包括相關視頻、圖片、招聘信息和食譜的建議。重要意義:穀歌的名字在這個案子上，但其他公司擔心對大型科技公司不利的裁決可能會對中小型公司造成毀滅性的影響。背景:在Gonzalez v.穀歌一案中，ISIS襲擊受害者的親屬起訴穀歌旗下的YouTube，稱其通過推薦親ISIS的內容幫助將觀眾變成恐怖分子。大法官克拉倫斯·托馬斯(Clarence Thomas)建議最高法院對第230條的適用範圍施加新的限製。原告認為，第230條的保護並不延伸到算法創建的推薦，因為YouTube在決定向用戶推薦哪些視頻方麵發揮了作用。穀歌認為，第230條保護了YouTube組織用戶帖子的方法，削弱這條法律隻會使過濾恐怖主義內容變得更加困難。他們說:“任何擁有用戶生成內容的網站都應該感到害怕，”由中小科技公司組成的聯盟Internet Works的執行董事喬希·阿基爾(Josh Ackil)告訴Axios。 Weakening Section 230, Ackil said, will make companies take down more content and unleash a flurry of lawsuits. "Any increased activity in that space... is an undue burden on a smaller company, and something bigger companies will be better equipped to manage," he said. What's a stake, according to tech firms that aren't as big or rich as Google, Meta and their peers: Pinterest: The platform is able to serve up relevant posts to users thanks to Section 230 protection, Braden Cox, head of U.S. public policy, told Axios. "If algorithmically presenting content to users could expose services to potential liability for unlawful content, they naturally would refrain from using those systems to present relevant content, depriving users of the positive experiences we all want and need." Indeed: "What you'll see from a lot of companies is an overextension of moderation, likely, because it turns into a proposition of risk tolerance," Matt Jensen, senior director of government relations at the job-listing site, told Axios. Patreon: The site for creators to monetize their online followings doesn't rely on algorithmic curation, but algorithms that make creators popular elsewhere on the internet such as those on YouTube or TikTok, lead them to Patreon, Colin Sullivan, the company's vice president of legal, told Axios. "It would be an incredibly bad result if Section 230 was rolled back... especially for creators," he said. Wikipedia: The online encyclopedia argues Section 230 protection of algorithms lets it organize and arrange pages, link out to related articles, protect itself from bad-faith lawsuits, and root out spam, per a blog post from the Wikimedia Foundation. Yelp: "Recommending content is a core form of publication under Section 230, and necessary to provide consumers with useful, trustworthy reviews," the company's lawyer's write in a brief . "Without immunity, deceptive reviews would flourish and consumers would be harmed." Reddit: Per the company's brief : "A sweeping ruling narrowing Section 230 protections risks devastating the internet. It is smaller and start up platforms especially that depend on Section 230 to foster diverse approaches to content moderation and to challenge the dominant industry leaders." The other side: Proponents of Section 230 revision argue that the law has either let tech firms get away with hosting too much dangerous content or given them too much latitude to take down material they deem objectionable. Section 230 has been applied far too broadly historically, a brief filed to the court by University of Miami law professor Mary Anne Franks argues. While Google should not be held liable for the claims made by the plaintiffs in this case, Frank says, "the text, history, and structure of Section 230 do not support the broad unconditional-immunity approach taken by many lower courts." What's next: Tech firms are making the rounds on Capitol Hill to urge lawmakers to clarify the intent of Section 230 if the Supreme Court weakens it, a number of companies told Axios. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court for Gonzalez v. Google are scheduled for February 21. Axios on facebook