Published September 6, 2024
In American capitalism, we rightly give private businesses extensive leeway to seek profit—but not unlimited leeway. If your company cuts corners on a faulty toaster that sparks a house fire, I can sue you for the defective product. If a railroad fails to maintain its network and a deadly accident results, it could find itself on the hook for tens or possibly hundreds of millions in damages. Even First Amendment rights are not unlimited: A newspaper that publishes falsehoods with malicious intent that destroy someone’s reputation can be held liable for libel. Only one industry enjoys immunity from these commonsense curbs on profit—the internet. At least, up until now.
In a potentially landmark decision last week, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Anderson v. TikTok that it was time for a dramatic rethink of the so-called Section 230 immunity that has helped pad the massive profit margins of the tech industry. The facts of the case are sickening: A 10-year-old girl, Nylah Anderson, encountered a “blackout challenge” video on her “recommended for you” TikTok feed, which dared children to try asphyxiating themselves until they blacked out. Following the platform’s suggestion, Nylah unintentionally hanged herself. Her distraught mother, Tawainna Anderson, tried to hold TikTok liable, but a U.S. District Court rejected her suit, following a quarter-century of precedent that protected online platforms for any content they hosted—including grotesque libels, incitements to violence, and child pornography.
Click here to continue reading.
