As we work through those numbers on SNAP and talk about social media, some of those social media companies need to prepare themselves. Thousands of plaintiffs complaints out there, millions of pages of internal documentation and transcripts of countless hours of deposition set to land in U.S. courtrooms that could threaten the future of the business model for some of those social media companies. That is the focus of a new documentary released on October 30th called Can't Look Away The Case Against Social M ...

Core Viewpoint - The US Supreme Court declined to allow lawsuits against social media companies for content recommended by their algorithms, specifically rejecting an appeal related to Meta Platforms Inc.'s Facebook and its role in radicalizing a man involved in a mass shooting [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Context - The lawsuit was initiated by the daughter of Reverend Clementa Pinckney, one of the nine victims of the 2015 Charleston church shooting, and was previously dismissed by two lower courts [2]. - The appeal challenged Section 230, a law from 1996 that provides immunity to social media platforms from being sued for user-generated content [2][3]. Group 2: Algorithmic Responsibility - The plaintiff, known as M.P., argued that Facebook's algorithms connected the shooter with extremist communities based on his internet history, thereby exacerbating his radical views [3]. - Meta Platforms Inc. has denied any wrongdoing in relation to the claims made in the lawsuit [3]. Group 3: Political Reactions - Section 230 has faced criticism from both political sides; some liberals argue it allows platforms to overlook hate speech, while conservatives claim it protects platforms that censor right-wing voices [3][4]. - Following the 2020 election, tech companies have shown increased willingness to engage with conservative viewpoints, as evidenced by Alphabet Inc.'s Google settling a $24.5 million lawsuit with former President Trump over his YouTube suspension [4]. Group 4: Supreme Court's Position - In 2023, the Supreme Court considered limiting Section 230 immunity in cases involving terrorist content but ultimately chose to avoid addressing the issue while narrowing the application of a federal anti-terrorism law [5].

Algorithms must be disclosed and you must have the option given to you upfront to switch your algorithm. There should be a B ya, bring your own algorithm. There should be an algorithm store.If you could say, I want one that just gives me a chronological feat. I want one that is from the highest quality sources. And then you should be required to show what the default algorithm is doing.And if you don't do that, I think you should lose your section 230 because an algorithm is more powerful than an editor at ...

Free speech doesn't allow you to go online and broom a child for sexual >> No, it does not. >> Okay. Free speech doesn't allow you to go on the internet and basically incite somebody to kill another person, right.>> Absolutely not. >> So, if it's illegal offline, it should be illegal online. Agreed.Whatever the law is. >> Yes, sir. >> Just because you're online doesn't give you a get out of jail free card.>> No, sir. So if a parent is worried about a child being bullied on a website, what rights do they hav ...