"A California Superior Court jury found that Meta and YouTube harmed a user through some of the features they offered. A New Mexico jury concluded that Meta deceived young users into thinking its platforms were safe from predation."
"These jury trials were just an early step in a long road through the court system. These cases will now go up on appeal, where the courts' rulings about the First Amendment and immunity under Section 230 will likely get reconsidered."
"While it may be tempting to celebrate these juries' decisions as a 'win' against big tech, the ramifications of lowering First Amendment and immunity standards on other speakers are bad."
A California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for harming users, while a New Mexico jury ruled Meta misled young users about safety. Despite public frustration with big tech, these cases are early steps in a lengthy legal process. Appeals will reconsider First Amendment protections and Section 230 immunity. Lowering these standards could negatively impact user speech rights. The anger towards these companies stems from legitimate concerns about corporate surveillance and user safety, but accountability should not come at the expense of broader speech protections.
Read at Electronic Frontier Foundation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]