people post. trump advisor, checking out food on yelp, reviews for hotels, even comment sections on his website. all that would likely go away because these companies do not want to get sued in case somebody puts up a terrorist content, or something else. so, for now, the internet remains the same as we know it. but the fact that we are even having this conversation sort of shows you that all the people that make our country work, policies, regulators, they are thinking about how we might have to change. it don t always talk about how we do want better content moderation because we are all seeing horrible things that they should not be seeing. we are, and where this is going, alison, is that instead of trying to do it with a blunt force, meaning it just get rid of a law dramatically, can we implement small changes, small laws, that would incentivize or push tech companies to make their content moderation stronger? one of the things that congress is talking about a lot is could we p
thank you so much. john? we are breaking news. the supreme court has just issued a ruling involving twitter and terror-related content. jessica snyder has the details. and jessica, this is going to extend, i imagine, beyond the terror issues as well. tell us what happened. yes, john, two big cases shielding the tech companies at large. the supreme court just coming down with two decisions connected with one involving twitter and one involving google and basically saying that all of the social media and tech platforms are not responsible for the terrorist content created on line. the first case released was against twitter. it is based on the anti-terrorism act, and families with relatives killed in the terrorist attack in turkey had sued twitter and other platforms saying they were in part responsible for the terrorist act, and under the erterrorist
that protects tech companies from liability from the content users post on their platforms. and next week the high court takes up a pair of challenges to president biden s student loan forgiveness plan. here with a look at those cases is ilya shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the manhattan institute and author of the book supreme kiss order: judicial nominations and the politics of america s highest court. ilya, welcome back. good to see you again. let s take the internet cases first. what do you make of the plaintiff s argument here where they are basically saying that holding youtube responsible for the algorithm that essentially channels terrorist content that they say is responsible for the death of their daughter? look, these are tough issues, tough cases, and all we know is that a majority of the justices expressed confusion. you do a search in the transcript text, confused comes
that is posted by third parties. the justices will for the first time consider the scope of the law in the gonzalez versus google case. it was brought by the family of gonzalez, the only american killed in the 2015 paris terror attacks. the lawsuit argues algorithms on youtube which is opened by google promoted terrorist content online which then aided and abetted isis. lawyers for google say that the company is not responsible because of section 230. yeah. it s really significant be. sara fisher is with us. this is so important for the future of the internet and i mean listening to oral arguments you have justice alito saying i am confused by whatever argument you are making. that was to the lawyer opposed google. explain what happened and why this matters. yeah. in the brief the plaintiff didn t mention small things like whether or not a thumbnail
sites to heavily police the content posted, and the justices also asked whether it s congress and not the courts who should clarify how much tech companies are protected. every other industry has to internalize the costs of its conduct. why is it that the tech industry gets a pass? a little bit unclear. on the other hand, we re a court. we really don t know about these things. these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. isn t that something for congress to do, not the court? the gonzales family has lost the case at the lower courts, but they can t to search for justice after the death of their daughter at the hands of terrorists. nothing is going to give me back my daughter, but at least there is something good is going to be accomplished. reporter: the supreme court will hear another case wednesday morning to determine if social media companies are responsible for terrorist content on their sites under an anti-terrorism law. that case does not involve