We filed an amicus brief in the appeal, Neville v. Snap, Inc., at the California Court of Appeal, and are calling for the reversal of the earlier decision, which jeopardizes protections for online intermediaries and thus the free speech of all internet users.
At issue in the case is Section 230, without which the free and open internet as we know it would not exist.
Section 230 provides that online intermediaries are generally not responsible for harmful user-generated content.
The plaintiffs are a group of parents whose children overdosed on fentanyl-laced drugs obtained through communications enabled by Snapchat.
Snap sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by Section 230.
In a petition for a writ of mandate, Snap urged the appellate court to correct the lower court's distortion of Section 230.
The petition rightfully contends that the plaintiffs are trying to sidestep Section 230 through creative pleading.
The petition argues that Section 230 protects online intermediaries from liability not only for hosting third-party content, but also for crucial editorial decisions like what features and tools to offer content creators and how to display their content.
We made two arguments in our brief supporting Snap's appeal.
First, we explained that the features the plaintiffs targeted-and which the trial court gave no detailed analysis of-are regular parts of Snapchat's functionality with numerous legitimate uses.
Take Snapchat's option to have messages disappear after a certain period of time.
It's also an important privacy feature for everyday use.
Simply put: the ability for users to exert control over who can see their messages and for how long, advances internet users' privacy and security under legitimate circumstances.
Second, we highlighted in our brief that this case is about more than concerned families challenging a big tech company.
Our modern communications are mediated by private companies, and so any weakening of Section 230 immunity for internet platforms would stifle everyone's ability to communicate.
Should the trial court's ruling stand, Snapchat and similar platforms will be incentivized to remove features from their online services, resulting in bland and sanitized-and potentially more privacy invasive and less secure-communications platforms.
User experience will be degraded as internet platforms are discouraged from creating new features and tools that facilitate speech.
Companies seeking to minimize their legal exposure for harmful user-generated content will also drastically increase censorship of their users, and smaller platforms trying to get off the ground will fail to get funding or will be forced to shut down.
We strongly advocate for Section 230, yet when a tech company does something legitimately irresponsible, the statute still allows for them to be liable-as Snap knows from a lawsuit that put an end to its speed filter.
If the trial court's decision is upheld, internet platforms would not have a reliable way to limit liability for the services they provide and the content they host.
This Cyber News was published on www.eff.org. Publication date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:58:04 +0000