The congresswoman, who has a long history of antisemitic statements, was previously slated to speak at the release of the commission’s 2023 annual report.
years ago. yesterday the court considered claims that google allowed isis to post hundreds of videos online aimed at inciting violence and algorithms helped isis recruit efforts along the way. the audio of some of those deliberations inside the high court. the thumb nails is based upon what the all going if if the videos don t appear out of thin air. they must be targeted to something. dana: more on all this we re live in washington. david spunt. it s getting underway right now. yesterday justice kagan asked the question to laughter in the courtroom should these nine justices be wading into the waters saying they may not be the best people to understand the internet. today s case focused on liability. can twitter be held liable by the families of terror victims.
terror victims can hold social media companies responsible. david spunt is life from the supreme court. what s the difference between yesterday and today s case? john, yesterday was by immunity, getting into the door to the courtroom to even begin with. as you said, today is specifically about liability and can social media giants like twitter be held liable. arguments just wrapped after two and a half hours, same story yesterday, they were supposed to be scheduled for an hour and ten minutes, but these seem to go longer and longer, especially when you have such an important case. this is the second big case involving big tech this week. family of a man killed in an isis attack in turkey in 2017 sued twitter, google and facebook, arguing those platforms posted terrorist videos on their site helping to spread propaganda. the justices, john, must decide how much responsibility, if any social media company should bear for the content online.