Republican Bashing of E.S.G. Gets More Complicated

Justices heard arguments for nearly three hours in a lawsuit filed against Google’s YouTube by the family of a victim of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. The plaintiffs argue that YouTube’s algorithms pushed Islamic State videos to interested users and that the company bore responsibility. (The Biden administration has largely argued in support of the family’s position.) Lawyers for Google argue that recommendation algorithms are neutral.

What’s at stake: Tech companies and their allies, as well as the original drafters of Section 230, worry that allowing exceptions could make sites with user-generated content — from Instagram and Twitter to restaurant review platforms and marketplaces — liable for every decision to present or not present third-party content.

Critics of Section 230 say the law is outdated and too broad, giving tech giants nearly unlimited legal protection.

The justices mostly suggested they weren’t ready to hold tech giants liable just yet:

• Justice Clarence Thomas defended recommendations as a vital part of the internet. “If you’re interested in cooking, you don’t want thumbnails on light jazz,” he said.

• Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried that imposing limits on Section 230 “would really crash the digital economy, with all sorts of effects on workers and consumers, retirement plans and what have you.”

• Justice Elena Kagan cracked more broadly about how ill-equipped she and her colleagues were: “These are not the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court favors the status quo. Kagan noted that Section 230 was a “pre-algorithm statute” that offered little guidance in “a post-algorithm world.” And Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether algorithms were truly neutral, since the formulas are “designed to maximize profits,” implying that companies are making decisions that could incur liability.

Ultimately, several justices suggested, this wasn’t a matter for the courts, but for Congress.

Microsoft draws red lines in its deal fight

After testifying yesterday in Brussels about Microsoft’s $69 billion takeover bid for Activision Blizzard, the tech giant’s president, Brad Smith, issued a challenge to regulators: Don’t try to force Microsoft to divest parts of Activision in exchange for approving the deal.

Proposals like selling off popular games are a nonstarter, according to Mr. Smith. It isn’t “feasible or realistic to think that one game or one slice of this company can be carved out and separated from the rest,” he told reporters after he spoke with the European Commission.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/business/dealbook/republicans-esg-vivek-ramaswamy.html