 I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. You just listened to associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan joke about how the Supreme Court may not necessarily be the best place to make sweeping decisions about something that they don't entirely understand. And that sentiment right there I think encapsulates the broader view that the justices had towards section 230 in the case of Gonzalez v. Google. And court watchers seem to agree that the court is really apprehensive about making any sweeping changes here. For example, the Hill reports that the justices seemed puzzled during oral arguments, the LA Times deduced that the justices seemed wary of weakening section 230, and the Washington Post gathered that they seem to want to move more cautiously with regard to this particular case. Now, if you watched my coverage of this last week, you'll know that I was sounding the alarm because I was very worried that the Supreme Court justices wouldn't necessarily understand what's being argued here. They don't have a good grasp of what the internet even is and why it's a public utility and why section 230 is absolutely necessary for the internet itself. But it seems as if the Supreme Court justices actually understand the gravity of their decision should they choose to side with the plaintiffs here. Now, let's go to the Washington Post where they're going to give us a broad overview of the justices reaction to the oral arguments that they heard today. Supreme Court justices suggested Tuesday that they might move cautiously in their first examination of the federal law that protects internet companies from lawsuits concerning platforms posting of content from third parties. The justices heard more than two and a half hours of arguments regarding the claim by the family of an exchange student killed in an Islamic State attack that Google's YouTube should be liable for promoting content from the group. But justices across the ideological spectrum said they were confused by the arguments offered by the family's lawyer and worried that the court could undermine an effort by Congress to provide immunity for the platforms decades ago when lawmakers wanted to encourage the development of the internet. Now we're going to listen to a little bit more of what Elena Kagan said during questioning because I think that her questions here in comments kind of demonstrate the court's overall view, at least in my assessment. And that is that any changes that they make could have huge ramifications. And there's a lot of uncertainty. They don't necessarily know what is going to happen if they side with the plaintiffs. So let's listen. Every other industry has to internalize the costs of its conduct. Why is it that the tech industry gets a pass? A little bit unclear. On the other hand, I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. And I don't have to accept all Ms. Blatch, the sky is falling stuff, to accept something about, boy, there is a lot of uncertainty about going the way you would have us go. In part just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area, and just because of the fact that once we go with you, all of a sudden, we're finding that Google isn't protected. And maybe Congress should want that system. But isn't that something for Congress to do, not the court? I think that you did a really good job of explaining the difficulty in trying to draw these arbitrary lines. And as a liberal justice, in theory at least, you expect her to kind of want to be more rigorous in her questioning against big tech companies. But in this instance, it's not just about protecting big tech companies, it's about protecting all of us. So in order for free speech, and individuals like myself to win, we need Google to win in this instance. Because this is about the internet as a whole, being a public utility. And these social media platforms that exist because of these tech giants, if they are fearful of lawsuits, and they think that allowing us to post content on their websites is going to lead to them going bankrupt or getting sued, then they're just not going to allow us to post. So in order for the internet to exist in the way that it is today, we need section 230, which is essentially arguably the law that created the internet as it is today, that needs to stand. Now, one thing that the plaintiffs were arguing, at least the solicitor general, because they are citing with the plaintiffs here, is that, well, sure, you're saying that this could open them up to a lot of lawsuits, but those lawsuits won't be one. But they're not buying it. And you may be surprised to learn who is actually citing with us here, with internet freedom. And I'm actually honestly surprised by Brett Kavanaugh of all people. The Washington Post continues, Kagan and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested a ruling on behalf of the Gonzales family could unleash a wave of lawsuits. Kavanaugh did not seem persuaded when Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the Justice Department and citing in part with the plaintiffs, said few lawsuits would have much likelihood of prevailing. Quote, isn't it better to keep it the way it is? Kavanaugh replied, for us to put the burden on Congress to change that, and they can consider the implications and make these predictive judgments. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been a critic of big tech companies and the protections they received, said Tuesday that he was unsure how YouTube could be said to be aiding and abetting terrorism when its neutral algorithms worked the same way whether a viewer was seeking information on the Islamic State or how to make rice pilaf. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wondered whether recommending a similar video to someone who has expressed interest in a subject is not the 21st century equivalent of a book seller pointing a customer asking about sports books to the section of the store where they are kept. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan told Eric Schnappner, a lawyer for the Gonzales family, that his argument about algorithmic recommendations was very broad. So at the risk of sounding overly optimistic here, because I'm still cautiously optimistic, it does seem, at least to me, as if the justices understand what's its daycare. And they realize that the plaintiff's argument is very, very broad. Now to give you a sense as to what the justices are responding to here, let's hear a little bit of the arguments from the plaintiffs. I think that the task for this court is to apply the statute the way it was written. And if I might return to a point that Justice Alito made, much of what goes on now didn't exist in 1996. The statute was written to address one or two very specific problems about defamation cases. And it drew aligns around certain kinds of things and protected those. It did not and could not have written, been written in such a way to protect everything else that might come along that was highly desirable. Congress didn't adopt a regulatory scheme. They protected a few things. It will inevitably happen, and has happened, that companies have devised practices which are maybe highly laudable, but they don't fit within the four walls of the statute. So what he's essentially arguing is that Section 230 was originally written to protect websites from defamation, but to extend that to algorithms, something that didn't exist at the time that the law was written, that violates the law, right? That violates the intent that the lawmakers had. So in other words, what he's arguing is that an algorithm can in effect aid and abet terrorists by recommending an Islamic State video to a viewer. But the justices aren't buying that, including Justice Clarence Thomas. Now what's remarkable about this next clip that we're going to listen to here is that Clarence Thomas was originally the only justice to my knowledge that was vocally against Section 230, and that's because he's a Trump sick event, and Donald Trump was saying we should overturn Section 230. But Clarence Thomas here is not buying the argument from the plaintiffs here. What if the YouTube, instead of automatically providing this list, which is hard, it's hard for me because I don't see this, I see these as suggestions and not really recommendations because they don't really comment on them. But what if you had to click on something like, for more like this, click here? Would that also be as far as your concern, aiding and abetting? In terms of aiding and abetting, if someone comes to me and says, what's Abaddadi's phone call, phone number, I'd like to call it, and I give him the phone number, I'm aiding and abetting, even if I don't say and I hope you'll join ISIS. Whether we're able to recommendation or not on our view is not the issue here. We tried to say that in our brief. I mean if you call information and ask for Abaddadi's number and they give it to you, I don't see how that's aiding and abetting and I don't understand how a neutral suggestion about something that you've expressed an interest in is aiding and abetting. I'm actually shocked because I never knew that Clarence Thomas had the capacity to be reasonable even minimally. So I agree with what he's saying here. I think that for you to claim that YouTube, but in having this content there and recommending it is tantamount to like aiding and abetting terrorists is insane. It's just, it's an insane argument that the plaintiffs are making and I sympathize with them. I understand that they don't want this to happen to another family, right? I understand their fears here, but changing the internet, destroying the internet potentially as we know it is not the way that you seek change. So what we're seeing here is a sort of skewing of partisan lines on the Supreme Court because traditionally you expect the conservative justices to side with big business here and liberals to kind of be a little bit more skeptical towards big business, but both sides seem to understand here that if they side with the plaintiffs, then the internet as we know it could be a thing of the past. And that's just not necessarily something that should be done by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are essentially asking them to behave as legislators when this, if there is going to be a remedy at all, it needs to be in the hands of Congress. And I would agree with that. I don't think that there should be a remedy. I think that there are ways to rein in big tech, such as anti-trust legislation, laws requiring more transparency, even nationalization, if you ask me, but having the Supreme Court litigate this here and make this broad change that affects all of us on the internet, I'm just not okay with that. Now, one surprise was Kintanji Brown Jackson. She of all the justices seems to be siding with the plaintiffs here at the most. And you kind of expect liberals in theory to side more with the individuals who want to hold these big businesses accountable. And that's a good instinct to have, but not in this instance. So let me show you what I mean by this. So her line of questioning towards Google, the defense attorneys here, was very, very aggressive. And I don't know if she's just playing devil's advocate, but what she said kind of worried me a little bit. If you look at the statute, it says protection for good Samaritan blocking and screening. If you take into account Stratman, Oakmont, if those things I thought were like a given, what the people who were crafting this statute were worried about was filth on the internet and the extent to which because of that court case and perhaps others. And so the statute is like we want you to take these things down. And so here's what we're going to do. We're going to say that just because they're on your website, it doesn't mean you're going to be held automatically liable for it. And that's C1. And to the extent you're in C2, you're trying to take it down, but you don't get them all, we're not going to hold you liable for it. That seems to me to be a very narrow scope of immunity that doesn't cover whether or not you are making recommendations or promoting or doing anything else. What I understand the government and the petitioner to be saying is that disseminating even 24-7 disseminating of ISIS videos is protected. The only thing that's not protected is whether you can tease out something about the organization and call it a recommendation when there is no express speech recommending it. It's just the placement of where in the order in which content appears. And that same complaint could be made about search engines. So I think under your view, search engines would not be covered because they are taking user information, targeting recommendations in the sense of their saying, we think you would be interested in the first content as opposed to the content on 1,692 sections. I mean, they have millions and millions of hits for any search result. And if you think those are recommendations and the other side gives you no basis for distinguishing between search engines, then the statute is just very different than what I think the one that Congress was talking about. Because again, if you're going to look at findings and history and policy, this is about diversity of viewpoints, jump-starting an industry, having information flourishing on the internet and free speech. Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that she inherently accepts the argument from the plaintiffs here. And she thinks that Section 230 should be destroyed. Perhaps she agrees with me that there needs to be more regulations on these big tech companies. I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take. But to get rid of Section 230, that is something that we need to protect all of us. Again, it's a little bit counterintuitive because in order for the little guy to win, we need big tech to win in this instance. Because if these companies are no longer going to allow us to publish content because they're fearful of lawsuits, then we don't have a voice on the internet. Social media as a utility, the internet as a public utility, is no longer a thing. So we need big business in this one limited instance to win. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold these big tech giants accountable, right? And so Kintanji Brown Jackson, she's seemingly siding with the plaintiffs here, but we can't know for sure until the decision is released. So in conclusion, it seems as if at least based on preliminary oral arguments that we're hearing from today, it's not as bad as I thought the Supreme Court justices, even though they may be ignorant to the internet and technology, they understand the gravity of the situation and how their decision here can have monumental impacts on the entire internet and democracy itself. Now, this is just one case. Remember that tomorrow they're going to be hearing Twitter v. Tom and now, but at least the sense that I got today from the Supreme Court is that they're not so willing to just straight up destroy the internet. And maybe that's because the conservative justices and even the liberal justices just want to inherently side with big tech. Either way, I don't care. What I care about is the result. And if them siding with big business, them siding with Google here, save section 230 and freedom of speech on the internet, then I'm all for it. So I'm a little bit encouraged here, but cautiously optimistic to emphasize