Connect with us

Published

on

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that will help determine whether social media platforms can be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorism for failing to remove content and accounts promoting it.

The arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh follow those in a case with similar facts, Gonzalez v. Google, that explores whether tech platforms can be held responsible for promoting terrorist posts through their recommendation algorithms. In that case, the justices seemed reluctant to overhaul the key legal liability shield in question, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held accountable for hosting their users’ posts. While many appeared sympathetic to a narrower reading of the law, several also seemed to prefer kicking the responsibility over to Congress.

In Wednesday’s case, such a consensus was more elusive, as justices tested a variety of hypotheticals on lawyers for either side as well as a representative for the U.S. government, which generally argued in favor of Twitter. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler represented the U.S. government.

The question in the case is whether Twitter can be held accountable for aiding and abetting a specific international terrorist act because it did not take more aggressive action against terrorist content on its service, given that it generally works to moderate and remove terrorist content under its policies.

Twitter’s lawyer Seth Waxman argued that the company should not be held responsible for aiding and abetting terrorism in instances where it is not directly aware of the specific post or account in question. He said that to satisfy the anti-terrorism law’s standard for liability, Twitter would have had to provide substantial assistance to the act of terrorism and know their actions would provide such assistance.

Waxman tried to draw a distinction between an open and widely used service like Twitter and a bank that provides money to a terrorist, given Know Your Customer laws that would require a bank to collect more information before providing its services, creating a greater level of knowledge than Twitter would have.

Justice Samuel Alito said he could see two different arguments for how Twitter could win, but it’s difficult to say in each where to draw the line. The first argument would be that Twitter did not know its services would be used to carry out a specific attack and the second would be that Twitter didn’t substantially assist in the attack.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that basing a win for Twitter on the knowing standard would be difficult “because willful blindness is something we have said can constitute knowledge.”

Justice Elena Kagan at one point asked Waxman whether Twitter could be held liable if it actually didn’t enforce any policy against terrorist content on its site. Waxman said he doesn’t think it could unless it also provided “affirmative assistance” to the terrorists.

Kagan seemed to disagree with that interpretation, saying it would be obvious in that scenario that Twitter was providing substantial assistance to terrorist activity, asking, “how could it be otherwise?”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett laid out a possible framework for a ruling in favor of Twitter in her questioning of Kneedler. Coney Barrett said such an opinion might say that in order to find Twitter liable for aiding and abetting the terrorist act, the complaint would have to prove that Twitter’s service was directly used toward the terrorist attack, not just general recruitment or radicalizing.

Coney Barrett also hypothesized that the justices could say there needs to be an allegation of specific knowledge of a terrorist act in order to find a service that’s “open to all comers” liable.

Kneedler said it would be important to clarify that some businesses that are theoretically open to all, like banks, would have a more “individualized encounter” with their consumers in the course of doing business, granting them more knowledge than a platform like Twitter.

Eric Schnapper, the attorney for Taamneh, conceded that they were not alleging specific ways Twitter was used to carry out the terrorist attack, but rather general recruitment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked if it would be illegal to sell Osama bin Laden a phone without knowing it would be used for a terrorist specific terrorist act.

Schnapper said it would not be necessary to prove the phone was used for a specific terrorist act, because it “aids the terrorist enterprise.” He later conceded that alleging bin Laden did in fact use the phone to further his terrorist activity “would be the better way to plea it.” Still, he said, the potential terrorist actions “would be fairly implicit in his name,” he said.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the case by June.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: Why the Supreme Court’s Section 230 case could reshape the internet

Continue Reading

Technology

Zuckerberg says Biden administration pushed Meta ‘super hard’ to take down vaccine content

Published

on

By

Zuckerberg says Biden administration pushed Meta 'super hard' to take down vaccine content

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears at the Meta Connect event in Menlo Park, California, on Sept. 25, 2024. Meta debuted its first pair of augmented reality glasses, devices that show a combined view of the digital and physical worlds, a key step in Zuckerberg’s goal of one day offering a hands-free alternative to the smartphone.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan in a podcast published on Friday that his company was pressured by the Biden administration to remove content on side effects of Covid vaccines.

Early in a conversation that lasted about three hours, Zuckerberg told Rogan that he’s generally “pretty pro rolling out vaccines” and that they are “more positive than negative.”

“But I think that while they’re trying to push that program, they also tried to censor anyone who is basically arguing against it,” Zuckerberg said.

A Biden administration representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The remarks come days after Meta said it would stop relying on third parties to check facts published on its widely used applications and instead turn to community notes, letting users add commentary regarding truthfulness. The strategy puts Meta more inline with X, whose owner, Elon Musk, has been advising President-elect Donald Trump and was a major backer of his campaign.

It’s also the latest in a string of announcements and comments following Trump’s election that appear targeted at appeasing the incoming president. Last week, Meta replaced its president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, with Joel Kaplan, the company’s current policy vice president and a former Republican Party staffer.

Meta was one of several large technology companies to announce that it was contributing $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, NBC News reported.

Zuckerberg has expressed criticism in the past about the Biden administration’s handling of Covid-related content.

In a letter to the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee in August, Zuckerberg said the administration “pressured” Meta to “censor” Covid-19 content, adding that he regretted some of the decisions the company made following those requests.

“And they pushed us super hard, to take down the things that were honestly were true,” Zuckerberg told Rogan. “They basically pushed us and said, you know, anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, you basically need to take down.”

Zuckerberg didn’t specify who from the White House made the requests, acknowledging that “I wasn’t involved in those conversations directly.” But he said the company’s response was that it wasn’t going to take down content that “is kind of inarguably true.”

The Food and Drug Administration said in 2021 that headache, fatigue, muscle aches, nausea and fever were the most common side effects of Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot Covid vaccine. Worldwide, Covid vaccines are credited with saving tens of millions of lives a year when the pandemic was raging.

On a separate matter, Zuckerberg said that the U.S. government hasn’t done enough to protect its technology industry, leaving too much power in the hands of regulators abroad. He said the European Union has fined technology companies more than $30 billion over the past 20 years.

“It’s one of the things that I’m optimistic about with President Trump, is I think he just wants America to win,” Zuckerberg said.

WATCH: Reed: Is Facebook a news platform or a vehicle for information?

Reed: Is Facebook a news platform or a vehicle for information?

Continue Reading

Technology

Amazon to shut down ‘Try Before You Buy’ rival to Stitch Fix

Published

on

By

Amazon to shut down 'Try Before You Buy' rival to Stitch Fix

Packages with the logo of Amazon are transported at a packing station of a redistribution center of Amazon in Horn-Bad Meinberg, western Germany, on Dec. 9, 2024.

Ina Fassbender | Afp | Getty Images

Amazon is shutting down “Prime Try Before You Buy,” a competitor to Stitch Fix that allowed Prime members to try out clothes, shoes and accessories and only pay for items they wanted to keep.

The service will be discontinued on Jan. 31, according to a notice posted to Amazon’s website. The notice then directs users to browse Amazon’s fashion homepage.

Try Before You Buy is the latest example of Amazon CEO Andy Jassy’s ongoing efforts to rein in costs across the company. Beginning in 2022 and extending throughout 2024, Amazon initiated the largest layoffs in the company’s history, cutting more than 27,000 jobs across the company. It has also shuttered several of its experimental projects, such as a speedy brick-and-mortar delivery service, its telehealth offering and a quirky video-calling device for kids.

An Amazon spokesperson confirmed the move, which was first reported by The Information.

“Given the combination of Try Before You Buy only scaling to a limited number of items and customers increasingly using our new AI-powered features like virtual try-on, personalized size recommendations, review highlights, and improved size charts to make sure they find the right fit, we’re phasing out the Try Before You Buy option, effective January 31, 2025,” the spokesperson told CNBC in a statement.

Amazon rolled out the service, which was previously called Prime Wardrobe, in 2017. It was only available to members of Amazon’s $139-per-year Prime subscription program, which also includes perks such as speedy shipping and access to streaming services.

Users could test out a mix of luxury, staple and Amazon-owned brands, and return whatever they didn’t want to keep for free within seven days of receiving the items. The service operated similarly to wardrobe subscription services including Stitch Fix and Rent the Runway, as well as newer entrants such as Urban Outfitters‘ Nuuly.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Prime Video head of global sports on the brand's sports ambitions

Continue Reading

Technology

Meta announces end of DEI programs. Read the internal memo

Published

on

By

Meta announces end of DEI programs. Read the internal memo

Companies are walking back DEI promises: Here's what you need to know

Meta on Friday told employees that its plans to end a number of internal programs designed to increase the company’s hiring of diverse candidates, the latest dramatic change ahead of President-elect Donald Trump‘s second White House term.

Janelle Gale, Meta’s vice president of people, made the announcement on the company’s Workplace internal communications forum.

Among the changes, Meta is ending the company’s “Diverse Slate Approach” of considering qualified candidates from underrepresented groups for its open roles. The company is also putting an end to its diversity supplier program and its equity and inclusion training programs.

Gale also announced the disbanding of the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, team, and she said that Meta Chief Diversity Officer Maxine Williams will move into a new role focused on accessibility and engagement.

Several Meta employees responded to Gale’s post with comments criticizing the new policy.

“If you don’t stand by your principles when things get difficult, they aren’t values. They’re hobbies,” one employee posted in a comment that got reaction from more than 600 colleagues.

The DEI policy change follows a number of sweeping policy reversals by the social media company this month. Last week, Meta replaced global affairs head Nick Clegg with Joel Kaplan, a veteran at the company with longstanding ties to the Republican Party. On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg announced a new speech policy that included bringing an end to the company’s third-party fact-checking program.

Axios was first to report the DEI changes at the social media company. Meta didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Below is Gale’s full internal memo, which CNBC obtained.

Hi all,

I wanted to share some changes we’re making to our hiring, development, and procurement practices. Before getting into details, there is some important background to lay out:

The legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently made decisions signaling a shift in how courts will approach DEI. It reaffirms long standing principles that discrimination should not be tolerated or promoted on the basis of inherent characteristics. The term “DEI” has also become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others.

At Meta, we have a principle of serving everyone. This can be achieved through cognitively diverse teams, with differences in knowledge, skills, political views, backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences. Such teams are better at innovating, solving complex problems and identifying new opportunities which ultimately helps us deliver on our ambition to build products that serve everyone. On top of that, we’ve always believed that no one should be given — or deprived — of opportunities because of protective characteristics, and that has not changed.

Given the shifting legal and policy landscape, we’re making the following changes:

  • On hiring, we will continue to source candidates from different backgrounds, but we will stop using the Diverse Slate Approach. This practice has always been subject to public debate and is currently being challenged. We believe there are other ways to build an industry leading workforce and leverage teams made up of world-class people from all types of backgrounds to build products that work for everyone.
  • We previously ended representation goals for women and ethnic minorities. Having goals can create the impression that decisions are being made based on race or gender. While this has never been our practice, we want to eliminate any impression of it.
  • We are sunsetting our supplier diversity effort within our broader supplier strategy. This effort focused on sourcing from diverse-owned businesses; going forward, we will focus our efforts on supporting small and medium sized businesses that power much of our economy. Opportunities will continue to be available to all qualified suppliers, including those who are part of the supplier diversity program.
  • Instead of equity and inclusion training programs, we will build programs that focus on how to apply fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background.
  • We will no longer have a team focused on DEI. Maxine Williams is taking on a new role at Meta focused on accessibility and engagement.

What remains the same are the principles we’ve used to guide our People Practices:

  1. We serve everyone. We are committed to making our products accessible, beneficial and universally impactful for everyone.
  2. We build the best teams with the most talented people. This means sourcing people from a range of candidate pools but never making hiring decisions based on protected characteristics, (e.g., race, gender, etc.). We will always evaluate people as individuals.
  3. We drive consistency in employment practices to ensure fairness and objectivity for all. We do not provide preferential treatment, extra opportunities or unjustified credit to anyone based on protected characteristics. Nor will we devalue impact based on these characteristics.
  4. We build connection and community. We support our employee communities, people who use our products and those in the communities. We operate our employee community groups (MRGs) continue to be open to all.

Meta has the privilege to serve billions of people every day. It is important to us that our products are accessible to all, and useful in promoting economic growth and opportunity around the world. We continue to be focused on serving everyone and building a multi-talented, industry-leading workforce from all walks of life.

WATCH: Meta is returning to free speech tradition, says Facebook’s former chief privacy officer Chris Kelly

Meta is returning to free speech tradition, says Facebook's former chief privacy officer Chris Kelly

Continue Reading

Trending