James Czerniawski
While many conservatives are weary about Big Tech censorship, some argue getting rid of Section 230 protections would lead to worse outcomes.
James Czerniawski is the Senior Tech and Innovation Policy Analyst at Americans for Prosperity and he has been covering this story.
THIS WEEK: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google, a potentially landmark reinterpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
While many conservatives are weary about Big Tech censorship, some argue getting rid of Section 230 protections would lead to worse outcomes.
James Czerniawski is the Senior Tech and Innovation Policy Analyst at Americans for Prosperity and he has been covering this story.
In Czerniawski’s view:
When it comes to Gonzalez the question asked is whether Google should lose 230 protections for making recommendations. This would have serious implications on the internet writ large.
I believe that Google is entitled to Section 230 protections in this case. The practice of recommendations is covered under Section 230 (f)(4), which covers these types of practices by social media companies.
Recommendations are a good thing for the internet and for users. It is an effective and efficient way of connecting users to content that they want to see more of.
Content Creators and influencers stand to disproportionately lose with a wrong decision, as they are the biggest benefactors of getting increased exposure from recommendations made possible on social media platforms. Imagine not being able to see recommended twitter accounts to follow, imagine never discovering Mr. Beast's YouTube Channel?
Brett Kavanaugh said during the oral argument: "It would mean that the very thing that makes the website an interactive computer service also means that it loses the protection of [Section] 230. And just as a textual and structural matter, we don't usually read a statute to, in essence, defeat itself." And he couldn't be more right. This attempt at line drawing between an interactive computer service and an access software provider seems inappropriate and not reflective of the state of the reality of how the internet operates. Doing so would undermine the relevance of the law!
The internet has, on net, been a massive boon for conservative voices who were otherwise limited in a world of traditional media. Recommendations on platforms have exposed tens of millions to conservative views, and while I understand the anger that is directed at these companies for the choices they make, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water that put conservatives in such a position to begin with.
You can read his full bio and watch his previous clips here: https://www.young-voices.com/advocate/james-czerniawski/