{"id":607908,"date":"2023-02-14T07:49:01","date_gmt":"2023-02-14T13:49:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.sellorbuyhomefast.com\/index.php\/2023\/02\/14\/the-supreme-court-may-overhaul-how-you-live-online\/"},"modified":"2023-02-14T07:49:01","modified_gmt":"2023-02-14T13:49:01","slug":"the-supreme-court-may-overhaul-how-you-live-online","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2023\/02\/14\/the-supreme-court-may-overhaul-how-you-live-online\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court may overhaul how you live online"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This article is from The Technocrat, MIT Technology Review’s weekly tech policy newsletter about power, politics, and Silicon Valley. To receive it in your inbox every Friday,\u00a0sign up here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Recommendation algorithms sort most of what we see online and determine how posts, news articles, and accounts you follow are prioritized on digital platforms. In the past, recommendation algorithms and their influence on our politics have been the subject of much debate; think Cambridge Analytica<\/a>, filter bubbles<\/a>, and the amplification of fake news<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Now they\u2019re at the center of a landmark legal case that ultimately has the power to completely change how we live online. On February 21, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Gonzalez v. Google<\/em>, which deals with allegations that Google violated the Anti-Terrorism Act when YouTube\u2019s recommendations promoted ISIS content. It\u2019s the first time the court will consider a legal provision called Section 230.<\/p>\n

Section 230 is the legal foundation that, for decades, all the big internet companies with any user generated stuff\u2014Google, Facebook, Wikimedia, AOL, even Craigslist\u2014built their policies and often businesses upon. As I wrote last week<\/a>, it has \u201clong protected social platforms from lawsuits over harmful user-generated content while giving them leeway to remove posts at their discretion.\u201d (A reminder: Presidents Trump and Biden have both said they are in favor of getting rid of Section 230, which they argue gives platforms too much power with little oversight; tech companies and many free-speech advocates want to keep it.)<\/p>\n

SCOTUS has homed in on a very specific question: Are recommendations<\/em> of content the same as display<\/em> of content, the latter of which is widely accepted as being covered by Section 230?\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The stakes could not really be higher. As I wrote: \u201c[I]f Section 230 is repealed or broadly reinterpreted, these companies may be forced to transform their approach to moderating content and to overhaul their platform architectures in the process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Without getting into all the legalese here, what is important to understand is that while it might seem plausible to draw a distinction between recommendation algorithms (especially those that aid terrorists) and the display and hosting of content, technically speaking, it\u2019s a really murky distinction. Algorithms that sort by chronology, geography, or other criteria manage the display of most content in some way, and tech companies and some experts say it\u2019s not easy to draw a line between this and algorithmic amplification<\/em>, which deliberately boosts certain content and can have harmful consequences (and some beneficial ones too).\u00a0<\/p>\n

While my story last week narrowed in on the risks the ruling poses to community moderation systems online, including features like the Reddit upvote, experts I spoke with had a slew of concerns. Many of them shared the same worry that SCOTUS won\u2019t deliver a technically and socially nuanced ruling with clarity.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis Supreme Court doesn\u2019t give me a lot of confidence,\u201d Eric Goldman, a professor and dean at Santa Clara University School of Law, told me. Goldman is concerned that the ruling will have broad unintentional consequences and worries about the risk of an \u201copinion that’s an internet killer.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

On the other hand, some experts told me that the harms inflicted on individuals and society by algorithms have reached an unacceptable level, and though it might be more ideal to regulate algorithms through legislation, SCOTUS should really take this opportunity to change internet law.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

\u201cWe\u2019re all looking at the technology landscape, particularly the internet, and being like, \u2018This is not great,\u2019\u201d Hany Farid, a professor of engineering and information at the University of California, Berkeley, told me. \u201cIt\u2019s not great for us as individuals. It\u2019s not great for societies. It\u2019s not great for democracies.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

In studying the online proliferation of child sexual abuse material, covid misinformation, and terrorist content, Farid has seen how content recommendation algorithms can leave users vulnerable to really destructive material.\u00a0<\/p>\n

You\u2019ve probably experienced this in some way; I recently did too\u2014which I wrote about this week in an essay<\/a> about algorithms that consumed my digital life after my dad\u2019s latest cancer diagnosis. It\u2019s a bit serendipitous that this story came out the same week as the inaugural newsletter; it\u2019s one of the harder stories I\u2019ve ever written and certainly the one in which I feel the most vulnerable. Over a decade of working in emerging tech and policy, I\u2019ve studied and observed some of the most concerning impacts of surveillance capitalism<\/a>, but it\u2019s a whole different thing when your own algorithms trap you in a cycle of extreme and sensitive content.<\/p>\n

As I wrote:<\/p>\n

I started, intentionally and unintentionally, consuming people\u2019s experiences of grief and tragedy through Instagram videos, various newsfeeds, and Twitter testimonials. It was as if the internet secretly teamed up with my compulsions and started indulging my own worst fantasies \u2026.<\/em><\/p>\n

Yet with every search and click, I inadvertently created a sticky web of digital grief. Ultimately, it would prove nearly impossible to untangle myself. My mournful digital life was preserved in amber by the pernicious personalized algorithms that had deftly observed my mental preoccupations and offered me ever more cancer and loss.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

In short, my online experience on platforms like Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Instagram became overwhelmed with posts about cancer and grieving. It was unhealthy, and as my dad started to recover, the apps wouldn\u2019t let me move on with my life.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I spent months talking to experts about how overpowering and harmful recommendation algorithms can be, and about what to do when personalization turns toxic. I gathered a lot of tips for managing your digital life, but I also learned that tech companies have a really hard time controlling their own algorithms\u2014thanks in part to machine learning.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

On my Google Discover page, for example, I was seeing loads of stories about cancer and grief, which is not in line with the company\u2019s targeting policies that are supposed to prevent the system from serving content on sensitive health issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Imagine how dangerous it is for uncontrollable, personalized streams of upsetting content to bombard teenagers struggling with an eating disorder or tendencies toward self-harm. Or a woman who recently had a miscarriage, like the friend of one reader who wrote in after my story was published. Or, as in the Gonzalez <\/em>case, young men who get recruited to join ISIS.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So while the case before the justices may seem largely theoretical, it is really fundamental to our daily lives and the role that the internet plays in society. As Farid told me, \u201cYou can say, \u2018Look, this isn\u2019t our problem. The internet is the internet. It reflects the world\u2019\u2026 I reject that idea.\u201d But recommendation systems organize the internet. Could we really live without them?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

What do you think about the upcoming Supreme Court case? Have you personally experienced the dark side of content recommendation algorithms? I want to hear from you! Write to me: <\/em>ta**************<\/span>@**************<\/span>ew.com<\/span><\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

What else I\u2019m reading\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The devastation in Turkey and Syria from the 7.8 magnitude earthquake on Monday is overwhelming, with the death toll swelling to over 20,000 people<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n