Supreme Court Ruling Protects Social Media

Dual Rulings

The US Supreme Court just made two moves to protect social media companies from liability for user-generated content on their platforms.

In the Twitter v. Taamneh case, the court stated Twitter would not face repercussions for content posted by the terrorist group ISIS. The court also moved to dismiss Gonzalez v. Google, a case arguing YouTube (GOOGL) should be held responsible for algorithmically recommending ISIS recruitment videos.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who presided over the Twitter case, argued that, while social media platforms can be hubs for illegal activities, so can cell phones, email, and the internet. In both cases, plaintiffs hoped the Supreme Court would address Section 230.

The Debate Over Section 230

Section 230 was enacted nearly 30 years ago as part of the Communications Decency Act. It protects social media companies from being legally liable for the content that users post on their platforms.

Proponents of the ruling say Section 230 helps support free speech on the internet and protects smaller players from costly lawsuits. Some also argue eliminating Section 230 would undermine the basic functions of popular sites like Facebook (META), Twitter, or YouTube.

Meanwhile, some critics argue Section 230 is an unnecessary protection for one of the biggest industries in the world and demand more accountability for social media companies. While many lawmakers are demanding change, there is no clear consensus in terms of how to effectively change the ruling.

Open Internet

The recent decision by the Supreme Court leaves Section 230 in place, affording social media platforms continued legal protection from users’ posts. While individual users may still be banned for posting harmful or hateful content, social companies aren’t held responsible for hosting such content.

The result will mostly be noticed by no change at all in your social media feeds. The status quo across the internet will remain the same, rather than facing the paradigm shift a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs may have entailed.

Looking for more stories like this? Check out On the Money — SoFi’s one-stop-shop for news, trends, and tips!

Check it out

Please understand that this information provided is general in nature and shouldn’t be construed as a recommendation or solicitation of any products offered by SoFi’s affiliates and subsidiaries. In addition, this information is by no means meant to provide investment or financial advice, nor is it intended to serve as the basis for any investment decision or recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Keep in mind that investing involves risk, and past performance of an asset never guarantees future results or returns. It’s important for investors to consider their specific financial needs, goals, and risk profile before making an investment decision. 
The information and analysis provided through hyperlinks to third party websites, while believed to be accurate, cannot be guaranteed by SoFi. These links are provided for informational purposes and should not be viewed as an endorsement. No brands or products mentioned are affiliated with SoFi, nor do they endorse or sponsor this content. 
Communication of SoFi Wealth LLC an SEC Registered Investment Advisor
SoFi isn’t recommending and is not affiliated with the brands or companies displayed. Brands displayed neither endorse or sponsor this article. Third party trademarks and service marks referenced are property of their respective owners. 
SOSS23051902