Tech News: Supreme Court to Weigh In on Section 230

the last couple of years, particularly in US politics. Now, this section says, quote no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider end quote. Okay. Essentially, what this section says is that, say, a web platform like a social media site cannot be treated as if it were the responsible party for the

stuff that its users post to that platform. So if I jumped onto a social media site to docks someone, or to spread lies about someone or something, or attempt to incite violence, the platform would not be held accountable for my actions. My platform. I really just I mean lots of stuff, not just social media sites and internet service provider could be an example, an I s P. I s P s give us the connections that we

need in order to interact online. If they were to be held responsible for the stuff that people do when they're online, well then the whole system would come crashing down pretty quickly. If you could sue an I s P because someone using that I s P posted something that was harmful to you, it doesn't take long for you to imagine a situation where everybody is suing everyone

for everything. Section to thirty allows for a couple of other things as well, such as protecting platforms for when they remove, van or block posts that violate the platform's rules. So if I were to post something on Facebook that was in violation of Facebook's terms of service, Facebook could totally remove my post and Facebook would not be legally liable for that. I would have no case if I

sued the company. I mean, I could sue Facebook, but they could cite Section to thirty in a court would find that my lawsuit has no merit because Facebook is allowed to do that. The reason I say that is now the U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that involves Section to thirty, and it's a case that has a tragedy at the heart of it, which always makes these issues more difficult to navigate because you want to be respectful of the people who are

affected by said tragedy. So in a U. S citizen named No. M. A. Gonzalez was killed in Paris during an Islamic State group attack. Her family sued Google. Uh really, you know YouTube's arm of Google or YouTube's arm of Alphabet, and they were arguing that the company holds partial responsibility

for Gonzalez's death due to YouTube's recommendation algorithm. The family's argument is that YouTube's algorithm promoted videos the aim to push people to extremist perspectives and that as such, YouTube and by extension, Alphabet should be held accountable for being part of what amounts to overall recruitment strategy. The case went up to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and they found that Section to thirty provides

protection to YouTube against the charges. So the family has then pushed the matter up to the Supreme Court, which did decide to hear the case. You know, Supreme Court is not required to hear cases. It gets submissions and then decides which ones it will actually listen to. So this potentially means that the Supreme Court could determine if

Section to thirty is constitutional or if it's unconstitutional. So potentially the Court could strike down Section to thirty UH, and if it does, it's not hard to imagine the flurry of court cases that would originate from all sides because this is section is one of those policies that gets a lot of flak both from Democrats and Republicans,

though for very different reasons. And I'm not saying that the reasons are valid or not valid, but rather that it's it's coming from a different point of view as

to why Section two thirty UH is dangerous. Both sides feel this way, but the people who created Section to thirty did so knowing that without it, internet companies would have no reason to even innovate or create any presence on the Internet because if they could be held liable for what someone else posted to that platform, then you know, there'd be too much risk because you can't control what other people do, right, So it could change everything. In fact,

I'm not even sure what it would change into. A lot of the Internet would just not work with Section two thirty removed or at least it would be bogged down by lawsuits all over the place. However, I have to stress that's just one potential outcome. The Supreme Court might find that Section to thirty needs to be more tightly defined, maybe it needs to have its own limitations. Maybe it just finds its section to thirty is perfectly cromulent.

And ultimately this case gets dismissed and we're back to where we are already. We don't know, but I will keep following up on it. In a pretty rare move, the United States Federal Communications Commission has brought the hammer down on some telecommunications companies. Now. This has to do with the anti robo call initiative that launched back in twenty so. The FCC required all telecommunications companies in the US to comply with anti robo call proto calls called

stir and shaken. The largest telecommunications companies had a tighter deadline to comply with these rules. They had to do it within a year uh and the smaller regional company these were given a little bit more time to get

up to speed. Well. Now, the FCC has identified seven voice service carriers in the US that have failed to meet the requirements of this set of protocols, and the FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosen Worseel says that those companies will have two weeks to fix this or else the f c C is going to exclude those voice carriers from

America's phone networks. Now that means is the the FCC is gonna issue a ban that all other sell or telecommunications providers are going to have to follow, where they will have to block any call originating from within those

seven networks. So if you are a customer of any of those networks and you try to make a call to anyone else in the US, your call will not go through because it will be blocked, assuming that they're not on the same network you're on, in which case you know you might be able to have calls within your network, but not outside of it. The networks include a CABUS that's a k A B I S cloud for global you see Horizon Technology Group, Morse Communications, Sharon

Telephone Company, and Southwest Arkansas Telecommunications and Technology. The clock is ticking for these companies to get up to speed, and hopefully at the end of all this, Americans will experience a significant decrease in robo calls. Another US agency that's gearing up to make an impact is the f

TC or Federal Trade Commission. It announced an upcoming event on October nineteenth that will include experts in several fields, including marketing, psychology, and child development to determine quote what measures should be implemented to protect children from manipulative advertising end quote. So this isn't to try and find out if advertising is manipulative. It's already taken that as a given, which makes sense because it's like we have any lack

of evidence on this. They're saying no advertising is manipulative. In fact, it's kind of its purpose sys to manipulate you into buying something, or convincing your parents in the case of children, to buy something. So the process they're gonna follow could include things like examining advertising that could be thought of as crossing the boundary to pass itself off as entertainment. So to a child, it might be as if they're watching a show, but that show itself

is really a commercial. Honestly, if you were to ask me about my favorite shows as a kid, all of them were effectively just commercials for toys. Like all the shows I loved as a kid were really the thinnest of excuses to show off a bunch of characters and vehicles and sets that would ultimately be sold as play

sets and and action figures and stuff. So I kind of I'm on board with this because I've definitely been the target of this sort of marketing in my own past, and I'm sure all of you out there have to at some extent. So the FCC is also involved with this particular process. The f c C is giving the public the opportunity to comment on issues that are brought

up during this October nineteenth event. So after the event and until November eight, the general public will be allowed to make comments on a on the matter on a dedicated website. There's been a steadily growing push in the United States to establish more defined and firm privacy protections

for U S citizens, particularly for children, which is nice. Uh, they have been so lax for so long that it's really an uphill battle at this point, because you know, we've kind of we kind of settled into complacency when it came to protecting our own privacy, and as a result, we have all these different systems in place that really prey upon our private information or have convinced us to essentially hand over that private information um and so correcting

that now is is a lot harder than building in those protections from the beginning, but still better late than never. I guess okay, I've got a bunch more stories to go through, But before we get to any of those, let's take a quick break. We're back. Regular listeners of this show likely already know that I am something of

a metaverse skeptic. I have not kept my opinions about the metaverse very you know, private, But in an interview with a Dutch publication called Bright Apple, CEO Tim Cook also expressed some skepticism and criticism about the whole metaverse craze. One of Cooke's arguments is that the metaverse really isn't a thing yet, and no one really has a firm definition of it. There are a lot of different visions, some of which have very little overlap with each other,

that everyone is calling a metaverse. There's a lot of speculation around it, there are a lot of questionable businesses popping up around it, and really you've got dozens or even hundreds of different concepts about what the metaverse even is or will be. Then Tim Cook also argues that technologies like VR are not likely to pull us into using them extensively as the new way to interact online.

We might use them on occasion for specific tasks, maybe like playing a VR game, or maybe watching some entertainment, or perhaps you know, if you're working in architecture, maybe you're using VR to you know, move around a virtual model or something. But Cook does not anticipate VR replacing how we currently interact with the online world, and I'm tempted to decide with Cook on this. However, I also admit I am getting older and I am more likely

to resist some ideas as I get older. So it's also possible that old folks like myself are just way off base that you know, we don't see this as the future because we're too mired in the past. That

is possible. However, right now, I see the metaverse as mostly a buzzword that is covering up a flurry of activity that's really geared to cash in on any sort of excitement about the idea of a metaverse, and I include stuff like an f t S and that again not to say that n f t S won't have a valid place, but they were really treated as speculative commodities early on, and that damaged the image of n

f T s moving forward. Also Web three concepts, I find those to be pretty questionable in a lot of cases, and obviously there are more examples than just that. And I should also acknowledge that I Heart Radio has gotten into the metaverse playing ground on platforms like Roadblocks and Fortnite. I Heart Radio has created virtual spaces for folks to gather at within these games and these platforms where they can do stuff like do little virtual activities and even

attend virtual concerts. Now, I admit I just don't get the appeal. I mean, I get the appeal of the gaming material, like the stuff that is kind of light, almost like it reminds me kind of a mobile games, Like it's that kind of level of game engagement. I get the appeal of that. I mean, these games exist because they tap into something that's very human. But I do not get the appeal of going to a virtual concert. Um. I did spend some time in the Roadblocks I Art area.

I played around a bit, but you know, beyond some pretty simple game mechanics, it just wasn't my thing. So I kind of bounced from it. But again I have to admit, you know, I'm I'm descending into grumpy old man territory and that may just be the reason why I didn't get the appeal. Uh Also, I should add that I didn't recognize any of the music acts that we had, you know, upcoming concerts, because the stuff I

listened to comes from a different era. And uh so, yeah, I look at the names of the artists who are having these virtual concerts and I don't recognize any of them. So I'm way out of the loop. And again I think that's cause I'm getting old. But yeah, I'm curious if any of you out there attending any virtual concerts, what did you think was it appealing? Was the experience compelling? Mike? What made it different from say, watching a video of a band play doesn't compare at all with being in

a physical venue and watching a band play. I honestly don't know, because I have not experienced it yet, and if you have, I'm really curious to hear about it. Moving on, Google has steadily been winding down its products and services in China over the last several years, and this week Google shut down its Google Translates service within China, citing low usage as the reason behind this decision, which you know is pretty much the same reason Google chose

to shut down the Stadia service in general. Now, in other cases with Google's products in China, Google either shut down services because of government interference, so you know, there's a lot of censorship issues that just made it untenable to continue operating those services in China, or it didn't really have a choice. The Chinese government just came in and started blocking different Google services like Google Maps and

things like that. And I feel like the last decade or so has been one in which companies have realized there's a hefty cost to attempting to access the huge market of China. Anyway, Google still has a couple of products that are active in China, but it remains to be seen if those stick around for very long or if China just leans heavily on uh the native companies within the country to provide the services that Google would otherwise be involved with. Okay, let's talk about YouTube some more.

We mentioned it previously in the Supreme Court case that is coming up, but now it's a totally different story. Whenever it comes to ads on YouTube, I actually have to read up on articles about it, because, as I mentioned in yesterday's episode, I'm actually subscribed to YouTube Premium, and has to be clear that's not how I started out.

I didn't start out subscribe to that. I was actually subscribed to a totally different service that ultimately got folded into YouTube Premium, and my subscription just kind of rolled over and I kept it. Anyway, This means that when I go on YouTube, I don't actually experience ads on the site. So I didn't notice any ad creep or changes in ad placement because I've never seen them, which means that when I read about it, it really shocks me.

So for example, in August, YouTube was reportedly testing out a different ad approach and sometimes had as many as ten unskippable ads before a video. For a lot of you, this probably isn't news. It was totally news to me and shocking. I could not believe that they would put up to ten unskippable ads before a video plays. That's just way too much, particularly as YouTube is starting to

shift it's preferences once again. So by that, I mean for a very long time, YouTube prioritized short form videos. In fact, the site had a strict limit on how

long videos could be. You know, you could only upload videos of up to ten minutes in length for the longest time, and then gradually YouTube relax that, and then YouTube's algorithms started to prioritize longer form content, probably because it would keep people on the platform longer, you know, they would stick to watch an entire video, so a

long video was prioritized by the algorithm. But now we're starting to see a shift again more back to short form as YouTube tries to deal with the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, which is TikTok. TikTok threatens all social video platforms out there, so Google, like a lot of them, are trying to kind of cater to that short form ex experience two maybe tempt some of

TikTok's audience away to join the platform. Well, now Google appears to be testing out a new way to urge folks to subscribe to YouTube Premium by restricting four K resolution content to YouTube Premium subscribers. Uh caud rate nes store and I apologize for the butchering of that name

from the site. Notebook Check wrote about this, saying that YouTube hasn't commented on anything related to this allegation, but that some users online in things like Reddit groups have claimed to encounter videos that offer a higher resolution version of that video, but with the message tap to upgrade, meaning you would only get access to that high resolution

version if you upgraded to a YouTube premium account. This or was actually unable to replicate this issue themselves because they are in Romania and apparent only it's not being tested there. So this does look like if it is a thing, it's a limited test, and it's possible that it never goes anywhere else. It may be that they test it, they decided against it, and we never hear about it again. Or it could mean that the higher resolution versions of videos are going to be locked behind

a subscription paywall in the future. Okay, I've got a few more stories I want to cover. Before I get to those, let's take another quick break for this next story, We're going back to China. There's a lot of flip flopping around here. It was hard to organize this episode because a lot of the stories had kind of a common thread to them, But ultimately, you know, you just

do what you can do. So the U S. White House is soon going to release some more restrictions regarding what kind of U S tech can be sold in China. And this is all about a concern that the Chinese could use US produced technologies for Chinese military applications, and considering the United States is relationship with China, that stands as a potential problem. So the rumored list of restrictions includes expanding the type that we're placed on Huawei, which

is a Chinese telecommunications company. So we're probably going to see some similar restrictions that will cover entities like Chinese government research laboratories, UM semiconductor companies in China, as well

as academic institutions in the country. The move might also shift China's positions in various tech fields, like it's not just to prevent China from incorporating these US created technologies into Chinese military applications, but also to shift the balance of technological superiority in specific areas of tech like super computing or AI. You've probably heard about how AI is like the next UH weapons race and that China is

a leader in the field. So you could also think of this as firing shots in the war of establishing technological superiority. Fun stuff, not long ago I talked about a proposed law in the EU that would require all smartphone manufacturers to adopt the USBC standard for charging. The same rule applies to devices like cameras and tablets and will eventually apply to laptops. So this law passed with overwhelming support. More than six representatives voted in favor, only

thirteen voted against it. It's definitely something that has some EGG advantages. So for consumers, this means that their cables will fit all these basic devices interchangeably. Right, as long as you have USBC cables, you're good to go. It doesn't matter what device you have, it doesn't matter what manufacturer created it. Your cable is going to fit that device, so you don't have to sort through a mass of tangled wires trying to find the one that works with

a specific gadget. This also can cut back on e waste because you don't need charging cables for each and everything because you're not gonna be charging everything all the time at the same time. You can use the same cable to charge multiple different devices over time. Uh really, you just have to buy a new one if an old one wears out or stops working, or if you do need to have an extra one because you've got a couple of devices that you use frequently enough that

it would be inconvenient otherwise. But it does cut way back on e waste. However, for companies like Apple, it becomes a big headache and is having to accommodate the USBC standard and considering the form factor of products like the iPhone, that pretty much means abandoning the proprietary lightning port and switching to USBC, you know, as opposed to say supporting both at the same time. A lot of people claim that this is just long overdue and that

this should have been done years ago. Honestly, I would like to see something like this pushed in America because it gets really frustrating when you try to track down a specific cable for a specific device. And while I've singled out Apple in this news item, in my own experience, the company that did this the most was Sony. Like I would get a Sony gadget and it would have its own onboard battery that you would charge by plugging in a you know, plug into the wall and attached

the cable to the device. But it was always a proprietary cable that you know, you couldn't just get a USB cable. Those wouldn't work, It wouldn't fit the part. And yeah, Sony was really bad about that. So I would love to see this in America. It may not matter because companies may just switch worldwide to more of a universal support of USBC, because if you have to do it in Europe, you might as well do it everywhere, right,

that's a possibility anyway. Starting in late all smartphones, tablets, and cameras sold in the EU must be USBC compatible. Laptop manufacturers will have a little more time to comply with those rules coming into effect in twenty twenty six. There's a super tanker on the seas called the New Aiden that is testing out some new old tech, and by that I mean sales. But these aren't the big

canvas sales you would see on tall ships and pirate movies. Uh. This super tanker, which is three hundred and thirty three meters long or one thousand ninety three ft long and can hold around two million barrels of crude oil, is using a set of four carbon fiber retractable sales to provide some of the energy needed to move this big old thing around. New Atlas reports that the sales on this ship can reduce fuel consumption by nearly ten per cent,

So this Mastership is still using fuel. Also, it's being used to transport fossil fuels. So it's not like this is a huge triumph for the environment or anything like that, but it could show that similar technologies on other types of ships will follow and collectively help reduce fuel consumption and cut down on issues like pollution and contributions to

climate change. The sales themselves measure forty in height when fully deployed, that's about a hundred thirty feet, and they connect to masks that can adjust the angle of the sales so that they are harnessing the power of the wind at maximum efficiency even as the wind shifts around. It's pretty neat technology, and my hope is that we're going to see more innovation in this space so that the shipping industry can reduce carbon emissions significantly over the

near future. Finally, one story that did a quick one a d from the end of last week to the beginning of this week is playing out on Ours Technica. All right, This really all starts with a story that was published in The Telegraph, which said that actor Bruce Willis had sold the rights to his likeness to a company called deep Cake based out of Georgia, not my home state, but rather the Republic over Eurasia. Ours Technica

had reported on this story last week. They cited the Telegraph article, but even when they published the article, they noted that some details mentioned in the Telegraph we're unverifiable, including one that said that Willis is the first actor to officially sell his likeness to a deep fake company.

But now Bruce Willis's agent has come forward denying that the actor ever made such an arrangement with Deep Cake, which has been using a digital replica of Bruce Willis to market its own products and services to potential customers. Deep Cake, for what It's worth, claims that it has a formal arrangement with Willis to use his likeness, specifically for a commercial that ran in Russia. In one Willis's representatives deny that he ever made such an agreement. This

is both fascinating and terrifying. I mean, one of the many concerns folks have about deep fikes is that using the right combination of software, you can replicate a person's appearance, their voice, their mannerisms to a degree that could I have done well enough make that person irrelevant for certain types of projects, you know, like movies or commercials or podcasts. Now, I'm not saying that this is the most important concern

that folks have regarding deep fakes. There are plenty of others that have more broad effects than the impact of a specific person's career. Do you know as someone who could potentially be affected by this at some point? It definitely raises concerns. Now Here's the nice thing. If I am ever replaced by a robot version of me, y'all will still get the show. You might just get more AI related dad jokes and puns. Anyway, I'm interested to

see how this story plays out. It could serve as an early battleground for things like rights to your own likeness and voice, and maybe even lead to legislation meant to help protect that kind of thing. What you know seems wild, but these are interesting times. That wraps it up for this news episode. If you have suggestions for topics I should cover in future episodes of Tech Stuff, reach out to me on Twitter. The handle for the show is tech Stuff h s W and I'll talk

to you again really soon. Y tech Stuff is an I heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.