|
There are isolated problems with current patches, but they are well-known and documented on this site. |
..“We’re a court, we really don’t know about these things,” Kagan said. “These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.”..
Yet, these nine Supreme Court judges were expert doctors in health care, pregnancy, abortion to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling but know nothing about the services they use every single moment of the day like smartphones or PCs, for online banking, online shopping, messaging, social media…
… the services they use every single moment of the day …
Could they do more judging if they went offline occasionally (and got some sleep sometimes)?
Windows 11 Pro version 22H2 build 22621.1778 + Microsoft 365 + Edge
Moderator note: This is not a venue for political discussions so please be aware that since Section 230 still stands I WILL moderate as I see fit and shut down any drift away from technology comment.
Often people in high levels of business do not use said “smartphones, pcs, online banking, online shopping, etc”. Recently we added remote banking to our small business and I’m considering an article on the security of mobile banking for consumers as well as remote online banking for business. I see many still not using these features.
Susan Bradley Patch Lady
These forums are a bit of “social media”. I would not want to be responsible for what anyone besides myself posts here.
Susan Bradley Patch Lady
Google indexes around 50 billion web pages.
Facebook has 17 billion posts and 10 billion messages every day.
There are 350 billion emails sent every day.
Wikipedia has over a billion edits.
YouTube has around a billion videos.
Just some examples.
Do you really think that it’s practical to have a lawyer decide that each one of these web pages/posts/emails/etc. complies with every US law before it is published?
Do you really want to wait for a lawyer to review your email or transferred files before you can access them or send them?
And if you extend it to them being liable for data stored, as you have said, that would mean that the services would be liable as soon as something was uploaded to them, meaning that all of the above would be impossible to exist, as would any form of data uploading, since all it would take is one bad actor to upload an illegal message or file for the service to be at fault before the lawyer had even had a chance to review it.
Unless they find it unconstitutional, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to completely vacate Section 230 (nor any other section of a law or the law itself that was passed by Congress and approved by the President.)
The different between what happened with Roe v. Wade and these cases is, that one didn’t involve a law passed by Congress. It was about a Texas law and the court decided the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which provides a fundamental “right to privacy“, protected a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion thus making the Texas law (and a lot of other state & federal laws) unconstitutional. In 2022 the court revisited that decision in a case about a Mississippi law and decided the Due Process Clause didn’t apply.
These new cases about Section 230 are about a Federal law so it’s a completely different situation and all the legal experts agree there’s pretty much no chance the court will rule that Section 230 is unconstitutional. The more likely outcome, following their duty to “interpret” the laws passed by both the Congress and the states, is they “might” change how the wording in that section is applied.
As it currently stands, various courts have always applied Section 230 as a “blanket” immunity for all the content web hosting providers contain because they don’t actually create that content, they merely host it.
The argument being made by the plaintives in these cases are that the host providers are actually creating new content when they “recommend” something to someone using their service and are thus liable for that particular content.
If the court agrees with that opinion and rules in their favor, it would have grave consequences for social media and search engines because they’d no longer be able to provide recommendations, ratings, or search results without the possibility of being liable for it… which, IMHO, would be very bad!
Donations from Plus members keep this site going. You can identify the people who support AskWoody by the Plus badge on their avatars.
AskWoody Plus members not only get access to all of the contents of this site -- including Susan Bradley's frequently updated Patch Watch listing -- they also receive weekly AskWoody Plus Newsletters (formerly Windows Secrets Newsletter) and AskWoody Plus Alerts, emails when there are important breaking developments.
