The US Supreme Court agrees with Google and Twitter in the trial that could have transformed the Internet

The Supreme Court of the United States rejected this Thursday linking the social network Twitter to terrorist attacks by organizations such as the Islamic State (IS), in a ruling on the alleged responsibility of the company for not correctly removing content from that group. The decision was drafted by Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas with the unanimous support of all the justices on the court.

Twitter recognizes that its algorithms further amplify right-wing politicians and media in Spain

Twitter recognizes that its algorithms further amplify right-wing politicians and media in Spain


In the ruling, Thomas argues that holding Twitter responsible for the 2017 terrorist attack that claimed the life of Jordanian Nauras al Asaf in Turkey, as requested by his family, would force any communications provider to be held liable for any wrongdoing simply because they are aware that criminals use their systems. “Actors such as IS may use these platforms (…) for illegal, and sometimes terrible, purposes,” says the magistrate, “but the same could be said of mobile phones, email, or the Internet in general.”

The judge further explains that the accusation by Al Asaf’s relatives that Twitter failed to act to stop the spread of pro-IS messages does not prove that the social network consciously tried to help the attack in which he lost his identity take place. life the jordanian He also points out that this accusation would make the platform responsible for any attack committed by IS anywhere in the world.

In a concurring opinion, the progressive judge Ketanji Brown Jackson considered that the rejection of the arguments of the Al Asaf family (and those of the family of Noehmi Gonzalez, who denounced Google for a similar case that was also rejected this Thursday by the same Court) does not imply that the court will always rule in the same sense if new lawsuits are presented.

Jackson explains that the principles used by the court to reject both demands “are not universal”, so he opens the door to evaluate “other contexts” in which the responsibility of social networking companies for the content published by their companies is assessed. users. Both Google and Twitter had maintained, in both cases, that the use of their platforms by IS terrorists does not imply that the technology companies provided them with conscious assistance.

The processes took on a transcendental aspect due to the enormous impact they could have had on the regulation of digital platforms. The argument of the plaintiffs in both lawsuits is that the platforms are not completely exempt from liability because they are no longer limited to publishing the content that their users create. “Algorithms are everywhere and the question is what the platforms do with them,” the family lawyer who has sued Google insisted during the trial.

Neither Twitter, nor Facebook nor Google simply transmit the messages, photos and videos, because since 2006 they adopted an algorithm system that recommends to each user the content that they consider to be most relevant, the families denounced. This “recommendation” implies that the platforms already know the material and value it, so -according to the accusation- they must also assume legal responsibility for it.

The US Supreme Court has overturned this argument and has positioned itself on the side of the theses of the digital platforms, thus preventing a cataclysm in the regulation of cyberspace that could have had consequences that are difficult to foresee. The Joe Biden government had also positioned itself in this regard when asked about its assessment of the legal process.

Source: – by

*The article has been translated based on the content of – by If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!