Currently, algorithms and similar behind-the-scenes automation determine everything from what content we see on social media to which websites we find on search engines to which ads are displayed when we surf the web. And it’s now up to the Supreme Court to resolve this disagreement in the Gonzalez case.Īt stake are fundamental questions about how the internet works, and what kind of content we will all see online.
Although at least two federal appeals courts determined that these companies cannot be sued over their algorithms, both cases produced dissents. The question of whether federal law permits a major tech company like Google to be sued over which content its algorithms served up to certain users divides some of the brightest minds in the federal judiciary. Significantly, the Gonzalez family’s lawyers also argue that YouTube’s algorithms promoted this content to “users whose characteristics indicated that they would be interested in ISIS videos.” Their theory is that ISIS posted “hundreds of radicalizing videos inciting violence and recruiting potential supporters” to YouTube, which is owned by Google. In the wake of Gonzalez’s murder, her estate and several of her relatives sued an unlikely defendant: Google.
According to her family’s lawyers, she was one of 129 people killed during a November 2015 wave of violence in Paris that ISIS claimed responsibility for. Nohemi Gonzalez was a 23-year-old American studying in Paris, who was killed after individuals affiliated with the terrorist group ISIS opened fire on a café where she and her friends were eating dinner. Google, an extraordinarily high-stakes tech policy case that the Supreme Court announced it will hear on Monday, emerged from a horrible act of mass murder.
0 kommentar(er)
