The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that could upend the internet as we know it—and some of the justices acknowledged that they may not be the right people to find the ideal middle ground in arguments over algorithms. "We really don’t know about these things. These are not, like, the nine greatest experts on the internet," Justice Elena Kagan said of the court, per USA Today. In Gonzalez v. Google, a case brought by the family of an American college student killed in an ISIS attack, the justices appeared to worry about the effects of major changes, reports the New York Times. Eric Schnapper, a lawyer for the family argued that Google, which owns YouTube, could be held liable because its algorithms for recommending content helped ISIS spread extremism.
Schnapper said that in some circumstances, search engines and social media sites like Facebook could also be liable for results delivered by algorithms. The case centers around Section 230, a section of a 1996 law that shields companies from liability for content posted on their platforms, and Kagan suggested that it should be Congress that makes any changes, the AP reports. "There's a lot of uncertainty about going the way you would have us go, in part, just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area," she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court's conservative majority, agreed with Kagan, suggesting it would be better to keep things as they are and "put the burden on Congress" to make changes.
Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, said recommendations made online platforms useful—and he saw them more as suggestions than recommendations, the Times reports. "If you’re interested in cooking, you don’t want thumbnails on light jazz," he said. "I don't understand how a neutral suggestion about something that you've expressed interest in is aiding and abetting." The court will hear arguments in a similar case Wednesday. (More internet stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
