Social media platforms, targeted by several complaints related to terrorist acts, remain protected by a law dating from the 1990s which removes all criminal responsibility for what their users publish.
This is a great victory for the web giants, who are nevertheless increasingly criticized by society. So how long can this situation last?
Social networks responsible for attacks?
Facebook, Twitter and Google have found themselves in US court after being accused of participating in Islamic State propaganda. Victims of terrorist attacks have filed complaints in two separate cases, claiming that these companies have been lax with regard to content that would have led individuals to become radicalized.
On the one hand, it is the parents of a young American killed during the Bataclan attacks who are attacking YouTube and its parent company. For them, the platform would have supported the development of the terrorist organization by suggesting its videos to certain users. On the other hand, the relatives of a young man victim of an orchestrated attack against a nightclub in Istanbul believe that Facebook, Google and Twitter are accomplices in the act. Orchestrated during the New Year celebrations, in 2017, it was claimed by the Islamic State.
In both cases, it was the Supreme Court that had to deliver its verdict: the web giants have no responsibility here. For Judge Clarence Thomas, “ the fact that bad actors profit from these platforms is not enough to ensure that the defendants knowingly provided substantial assistance “.
The collapse of the digital economy?
The judicial institution relied on a law dating from 1996, which grants legal immunity to digital companies in relation to content published by their users. The web giants are therefore considered as hosts and not as publishers. However, in more than two decades, society and the Internet have changed, and social networks are increasingly singled out for their responsibility towards society and their sometimes questionable moderation.
For elected Americans, the situation must change. Indeed, members of the Democratic Party believe that social media platforms tend to allow racist or conspiratorial messages to thrive. This is all the more serious when they begin to derive financial benefit from this type of content, which can quickly acquire a certain popularity. But the consensus is not quite there in the land of Uncle Sam, where Republicans had strongly criticized the censorship perpetrated by the web giants when Donald Trump was banned from several platforms, including Twitter.
For Judge John Roberts, changing the law could have other negative effects, such as ” collapse the digital economy, with all sorts of consequences for workers and pension funds “. Between freedom of expression and protectionism with regard to workers, the Supreme Court would therefore have good reasons to avoid any change likely to modify the current situation.
And, it is not the tech sector that will dispute this assertion, since its representatives welcome this decision. Especially since, according to Chris Marchese, lawyer for a collective of companies such as Twitter, Meta and Google, ” even with the best moderation systems available, a service like Twitter cannot filter every user-generated content with 100% accuracy “. Not sure that everyone is still convinced…
Source : The Parisian, Reuters
6