It looks like it will most likely be ruled in favor of google because Gonzalez's lawyers got dunked on hard. Cope and seethe anti-230 dramacels. Anyway, here are the highlights and drama:
News articles:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-section-230-gonzalez-v-google-immunity-social-media/
https://www.axios.com/2023/02/21/supreme-court-online-content-section-230-gonzalez-arguments
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/21/supreme-court-section-230-google-youtube-00083824
https://x.com/AltLeloge/status/1628070778259353610
https://x.com/Maswartz226/status/1628061384939343875
https://x.com/JonSchweppe/status/1628105716782202895
https://x.com/superwuster/status/1628091191844646913
https://x.com/superwuster/status/1628098371431825418
https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/118flmj/google_lawyer_warns_internet_will_be_a_horror/
https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1178kzj/big_techs_future_is_up_to_a_supreme_court_that/
https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/118flmj/google_lawyer_warns_internet_will_be_a_horror/
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mad-at-the-internet.49299/post-15043096
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/battle-for-section-230.70375/post-15036765
Orange Site:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34888127
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34871139
How will Twitter v. Taamneh go? We'll see tomorrow!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The first lawyer sounded like a complete r-slur but the second actually got the point across. I don't think anything is decided for sure yet.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context