"Amazon employees staged a walkout Wednesday," reports CNBC, "in protest of the company's recent return-to-office mandate, layoffs and its environmental record." Approximately 2,000 employees worldwide walked off the job shortly after 3 p.m. EST, with about 1,000 of those workers gathering outside the Spheres, the massive glass domes that anchor Amazon's Seattle headquarters, according to employee groups behind the effort. Amazon disputed the figure and said about 300 employees participated.

The walkout was organized in part by Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, an influential worker organization that has repeatedly pressed the e-retailer on its climate stance... One employee spoke about how remote work had allowed her to spend more time with her family, while coworkers told her it enabled them to care for newborn children and relatives with special needs. "Today looks like it might be the start of a new chapter in Amazon's history, when tech workers coming out of the pandemic stood up and said we still want a say in this company and the direction of this company," said Eliza Pan, a cofounder of AECJ and a former program manager at Amazon. "We still want a say in the important decisions that affect all of our lives, and tech workers are going to stand up for ourselves, for each other, for our families, the communities where Amazon operates and for life on planet Earth...."

Amazon spokesperson Brad Glasser said in a statement that the company has so far been pleased with the results of its return-to-office push. "There's more energy, collaboration, and connections happening, and we've heard this from lots of employees and the businesses that surround our offices," Glasser added. "

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: A Virginia jury held Cox liable for pirating subscribers because it failed to terminate accounts after repeated accusations, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the labels. This landmark ruling is currently under appeal. As part of the appeal, Cox informed the court of a supplemental authority that could support its position. The case in question is Twitter vs. Taamneh, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the social media platform isn't liable for ISIS terrorists, who used Twitter to recruit and raise funds. The Supreme Court rejected (PDF) the claim that Twitter aided-and-abetted terrorist activity, because it didn't "consciously and culpably" participate in the illegal activity. According to Cox, the same logic applies in its case, where the ISP was held liable for the piracy activities of subscribers.

"These same aiding-and-abetting principles animate copyright law's contributory liability doctrine, and they likewise foreclose liability here," an attorney for Cox informed the court. Cox argues that the Supreme Court ruling confirms that aiding-and-abetting liability only applies when parties knowingly took part in the activity. That runs contrary to the finding in its own dispute with the record labels, where "culpable expression and conduct" or "intent" were not required. "Though Twitter arises in a different context, its reasoning applies with full force and supports reversal of the contributory infringement verdict," Cox added. The two cases are indeed quite different, but ultimately they are about imposing liability on third-party services.

According to Cox, the Twitter terrorist ruling clearly shows that it isn't liable for pirating subscribers, but the music companies see things differently. Earlier this week, the music labels responded in court (PDF), countering Cox's arguments. They argue that the Twitter ruling doesn't apply to their piracy dispute with Cox, as the cases are grounded in different laws. While the music industry certainly isn't happy with pirates, the Cox case is a copyright matter while the Twitter lawsuit fell under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And for now, pirates are not categorized as terrorists. After establishing the difference between pirates and terrorists, the music companies point out that Twitter wasn't directly connected to the misconduct. The platform's role was more passive and its connection to ISIS was more distant than Cox's connection to its subscribers. Cox took a more active role and materially contributed to the pirating activities, which stands no comparison to the Twitter case, plaintiffs argue.

The Pentagon has announced that it will purchase Starlink satellite internet terminals from SpaceX to provide communication capabilities to Ukraine as it defends itself against a full-scale Russian invasion. "We continue to work with a range of global partners to ensure Ukraine has the satellite and communication capabilities they need. Satellite communications constitute a vital layer in Ukraine's overall communications network and the department contracts with Starlink for services of this type," the Pentagon said in a statement to CNBC. "For operational security reasons and due to the critical nature of these systems -- we do not have additional information regarding specific capabilities, contracts or partners to provide at this time," the statement added. From the report: The first Starlink terminals in Ukraine arrived four days after Russian troops poured over the nation's border in what became the largest air, land and sea assault in Europe since World War II. Ukraine digital minister Mykhailo Fedorov, who had previously asked Musk for the capability on Twitter, posted that Starlink was "here" in Ukraine -- with a photo showing more than two dozen boxes in the back of a truck. Musk said in October that SpaceX wouldn't be able to continue funding use of Starlink terminals in the country out of its own coffers "indefinitely," after a report from CNN said the company had asked the Pentagon to cover the cost.

Western officials have previously hailed Musk's decision to equip Ukraine with Starlink internet, citing the colossal and indiscriminate Russian shelling on civilian infrastructure that has left large swaths of the country without communications. Musk reportedly told the Pentagon in October he would no longer finance the Starlink terminals in Ukraine as the country prepared to fight through the harsh winter months. However, the billionaire reversed course and did continue to fund the service.

Meta announced that it would remove news content from its platform in California if the state government passes legislation requiring tech companies to pay publishers. Reuters reports: The proposed California Journalism Preservation Act would require "online platforms" to pay a "journalism usage fee" to news providers whose work appears on their services, aimed at reversing a decline in the local news sector. In a tweeted statement, Meta spokesman Andy Stone called the payment structure a "slush fund" and said the bill would primarily benefit "big, out-of-state media companies under the guise of aiding California publishers."

The statement was Meta's first on the California bill specifically, although the company has been waging similar battles over compensation for news publishers at the federal level and in countries outside the United States.

My Photo Stream, the free cloud-based photo syncing feature Apple launched in 2011, is shutting down on July 26th, according to an Apple Support page spotted by Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. The Verge reports: The end of My Photo Stream won't come as too much of a surprise. Although it was free, it came with a long list of restrictions on the amount of photos you could upload, and these were only saved on Apple's servers for 30 days. Photos saved in the cloud then had to be manually saved locally if you wanted to keep them on a secondary device and, perhaps worst of all, 9to5Mac notes that high-quality photos weren't synced in their original resolution.

iCloud's free storage may be relatively limited at just 5GB, but at least it acts like a modern cloud storage service with photos and videos stored in their full resolution. Apple's support page notes that new photo uploads to My Photo Stream will come to an end on June 26th, and that the feature will disappear entirely a month later. "The photos in My Photo Stream are already stored on at least one of your devices," Apple's page notes, "So as long as you have the device with your originals, you won't lose any photos as part of this process."

Entrepreneur Molson Hart, writing in a Twitter thread: I criticized Amazon's policies in a blogpost. Now, their lawyers are trying to ruin me. Four years ago, I wrote an article. It had a simple message:

1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon.
2. If they do, Amazon hides their products.
3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers.

This is a big deal. Vox's Land of the Giants podcast interviewed me because of it. And I even got to testify before Congress. But nothing happened until November 2022 when the state of California filed a complaint against Amazon. They cited me and made me a witness. And in response, Amazon served me with a lawsuit. I said Amazon's policy raises prices for consumers. That's evidence in this lawsuit. So Amazon's lawyers want to show that I'm lying or wrong. That's why they've requested all these documents. They want to find the ones which make me look bad.

The problem with providing the documents is that it creates endless legal work. I can't afford to pay these legal bills through August 2026! The other problem is that no amount of documents is ever good enough for Amazon's attorneys. After I provided the first set of documents, they said that wasn't good enough. They requested more. And after I agreed to TWO DAYS of depositions, they said that wasn't good enough, either. They wanted more. If Amazon cannot show I'm lying or wrong, they'll lose. If they lose, they could be broken up for being a monopoly. But, I don't believe they should be. Amazon's attorneys aren't right when they called me a "critic of Amazon." I am a critic of Amazon's policies, NOT Amazon.

Amazon, I've spent over 16 hours this past weekend gathering documents for your attorneys. You won't return my calls or e-mails. Your lawyers want to ruin me, but if you continue along this path, this lawsuit will not ruin me. It will ruin Amazon.

Nicole Carpenter, reporting for Polygon: There's a bridge to cross the lava pit in The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom's Marakuguc Shrine, but it's broken. More than half of the bridge is piled on top of itself on one side of the pit, with one clipped-off segment on the other. The bridge is the obvious choice for crossing the lava, but how to fix it? A clip showing one potential solution went viral on Twitter shortly after Tears of the Kingdom's release: The player uses Link's Ultrahand ability to unfurl the stacked bridge by attaching it to a wheeled platform in the lava. When the wheeled platform -- now attached to the edge of the bridge -- activates and moves forward, it pulls the bridge taut, splashing lava as it goes, until the suspension bridge is actually suspended and can be crossed.

But it wasn't the solution itself that resonated with players; instead, the clip had game developers' jaws on the ground, in awe of how Nintendo's team wrangled the game's physics system to do that. To players, it's simply a bridge, but to game developers, it's a miracle. "The most complicated part of game development is when different systems and features start touching each other," said Shayna Moon, a technical producer who's worked on games like the 2018 God of War reboot and its sequel, God of War: Ragnarok, to Polygon. "It's really impressive. The amount of dynamic objects is why there are so many different kinds of solutions to this puzzle in particular. There are so many ways this could break."

Moon pointed toward the individual segments of the bridge that operate independently. Then there's the lava, the cart, and the fact you can use Link's Ultrahand ability to tie any of these things together -- even the bridge back onto itself. [...] Tears of the Kingdom was seemingly built on top of Breath of the Wild, reportedly with a large portion of the same team working on it. "There is a problem within the games industry where we don't value institutional knowledge," Moon said. "Companies will prioritize bringing someone from outside rather than keeping their junior or mid-level developers and training them up. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by not valuing that institutional knowledge. You can really see it in Tears of the Kingdom. It's an advancement of what made Breath of the Wild special."

According to investigative reporter Will Evans, Amazon recently backed out of a commitment to make 50% of its shipments net-zero carbon by 2030. "Amazon said (PDF) in a statement that it would roll this goal into a broader Climate Pledge to reach net-zero carbon across all its operations by 2040," reports Insider. "That's a decade later than the 50% goal, which was called 'Shipment Zero' at the time." From the report: "As we examined our work toward The Climate Pledge, we realized that it no longer made sense to have a separate and more narrow Shipment Zero goal that applied to only one part of our business, so we've decided to eliminate it," Amazon wrote in the statement.

The investigative reporter Will Evans squeezed this information from Amazon and tweeted about it Thursday. Last year, Evans uncovered a study that said the company had drastically undercounted its carbon footprint. At the time, an Amazon spokesman reiterated the company's commitment to cutting emissions, including ordering a fleet of electric delivery vans and buying renewable energy for its electricity needs.

Dropping the specific shipment pledge is noteworthy because Amazon's ecommerce operation relies on vast fleets of vehicles and aircraft to deliver packages to consumers quickly. Most of this activity chews up vast quantities of fossil fuels and spews out greenhouse gases. However, fast delivery is a key selling point for shoppers and the main reason millions subscribe to the company's Prime program. Amazon announced the Shipment Zero initiative in a blog a few years ago. The company has since deleted the post. However, through the magic of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, large corporations cannot rewrite online history. Here's a version of the blog.

Neuralink, a neurotech startup co-founded by Elon Musk, has received FDA approval for its first in-human clinical study to test its brain implant called the Link. The implant aims to help patients with severe paralysis regain the ability to control external technologies using neural signals, potentially allowing them to communicate through mind-controlled cursors and typing. CNBC reports: "This is the result of incredible work by the Neuralink team in close collaboration with the FDA and represents an important first step that will one day allow our technology to help many people," the company wrote in a tweet. The FDA and Neuralink did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment. The extent of the approved trial is not known. Neuralink said in a tweet that patient recruitment for its clinical trial is not open yet.

No [brain-computer interface, or BCI] company has managed to clinch the FDA's final seal of approval. But by receiving the go-ahead for a study with human patients, Neuralink is one step closer to market. Neuralink's BCI will require patients to undergo invasive brain surgery. Its system centers around the Link, a small circular implant that processes and translates neural signals. The Link is connected to a series of thin, flexible threads inserted directly into the brain tissue where they detect neural signals. Patients with Neuralink devices will learn to control it using the Neuralink app. Patients will then be able to control external mice and keyboards through a Bluetooth connection, according to the company's website.

The Tesla Model Y has become the world's best-selling car in the first quarter of 2023, according to industry analyst JATO Dynamics, making it the first time an electric vehicle (EV) has achieved this milestone. Electrek reports: The Model Y has dethroned the Toyota Corolla as the world's best-selling car in Q1 and looks like it may well maintain this position for the full year. JATO Dynamics analyst Felipe Munoz compiled the data for Motor1, showing that the Model Y had 267,200 sales in Q1, according to data from 53 markets and projections/estimates for the rest of the world. This put it ahead of the Corolla at 256,400 sales for the same period and significantly ahead of the other top-five cars, the Hilux, RAV4, and Camry, all from Toyota.

While we don't know if this placing will continue for the rest of the year, Model Y sales have been continually growing, whereas Corolla sales are trending slightly downward. One model is new and based on new technology, and the other is an old standard -- though the current iteration of both models came out in a similar time frame, 2018 for the Corolla and 2019 for Model Y. And given Tesla's massive price cuts this year on Model Y, this will surely make the car accessible to more people compared to 2022.

Indeed, Model Y sales are already growing compared to last year. In 2022, Tesla had two of the top ten cars in the world, with Model Y achieving 759k sales. That gives it an average quarterly run rate of 189k, and this year's Q1 number is a significant increase from that. If Model Y continues at this rate or sales continue to grow at all for the rest of this year, it will exit 2023 with over 1 million sales. The only other vehicle in the world to sell 1 million units last year was the Toyota Corolla, at 1.12 million. So it might be close at year's end, but we think it's likely that Model Y will maintain its position. "The achievement is even more impressive given Model Y's pricing and availability," adds Electrek. "While the Model Y does have broad availability in the world's largest markets, the Corolla is available everywhere. And despite recent price cuts, the Model Y at ~$40k (after credits) is still significantly more expensive than a base-model Corolla at $21k."

In other EV news, Ford and Tesla announced a partnership that will allow Ford owners access to more than 12,000 Tesla Superchargers across the U.S. and Canada starting early next year. "And, Ford's next-generation of EVs -- expected by mid-decade -- will include Tesla's charging plug, allowing owners of Ford vehicles to charge at Tesla Superchargers without an adapter, making Ford among the first automakers to explicitly tie into the network," reports CNBC.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: People trying to use Discord are being asked to identify an object that does not exist. The object in question is a "Yoko," which appears to be a kind of mix between a snail and a yoyo. Multiple people have reported seeing a prompt to identify a Yoko when asked to solve a simple captcha prompt while trying to use Discord. The picture of the Yoko, as well as the other images in the captcha, appear generated by AI. Another user complained on Twitter that they'd failed to pass a captcha to log into Discord when it asked him to identify images of a puzzle cube. Again, the pictures appeared to be AI generated.

Discord's captchas are run by a company called hCaptcha. "The technology that generates these prompts is proprietary to our third-party partner and Discord does not directly determine what is presented to users," Discord told Motherboard. "While most hCaptcha interactions do not result in a visual challenge, many variants are used at any given time," a spokesperson for hCaptcha told Motherboard. "This particular question was a brief test seen by a small number of people, but the sheer scale of hCaptcha (hundreds of millions of users) means that when even a few folks are surprised by a challenge this often produces some tweets."

The issue with hCaptcha's strange AI generated prompts highlights two issues with machine learning systems. The first is that the AI systems require an enormous amount of human input to not be terrible. Typically image labeling is outsourced to foreign workers who do it for pennies on the dollar. The other is the issue of data drift. The longer these machine learning systems run, the more input they require. Inevitably, they begin to use data they've generated to train themselves. Systems that train on themselves long enough become AI Hapsburgs, churning out requests to identify incomprehensible objects like "Yokos."

MoviePass is back thanks to MoviePass co-founder Stacy Spikes, who was fired from the company in 2018 for questioning the sustainability of its business model. "Under the company's new points-based system, you can pay $10 per month to watch one to three movies at any of the 4,000 participating theaters throughout the US," reports The Verge. From the report: In addition to the $10 / month Basic plan, MoviePass offers three more expensive subscription options: a $20 / month Standard plan for three to seven movies per month, a $30 / month Premium plan for five to 11 movies per month, and a $40 / month Pro for up to 30 movies per month. There's a separate, more expensive subscription for customers in Southern California and the New York metro area. The reason why each tier includes a range of movies you can watch has to do with the way MoviePass' new credits system works. Every tier offers a different number of credits that you can redeem on movies each month, with Basic having the least number of credits and the Pro plan having the most.

According to MoviePass, a film's credit value can fluctuate depending on a number of factors, including the time of day and day of the week you want to watch it. Based on tweets from customers who tested the service, credit costs have changed without warning and can vary significantly across showings. If you don't use up all your credits, MoviePass says it will roll them over to the next month, allowing you to have a maximum of two months' worth of unused credits in your account to use at a later date. Once you sign up for the service, you'll receive a MoviePass card within 10 to 15 business days that you'll need to use at supported theaters. The sustainability of MoviePass started to crumble in 2017 when it began offering customers unlimited movie-watching for just $9.95 per month. The seemingly too-good-to-be-true pricing ultimately resulted in the company's bankruptcy two years later.

Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against MoviePass, alleging that the company had misled investors about the viability of its business model.

Nintendo is facing a potential class-action lawsuit filed by a young gamer and backed by his father, alleging that the microtransactions in the mobile game Mario Kart Tour are "immoral." Axios reports: The suit calls for refunds for all minors in the U.S. who paid to use Mario Kart Tour's "Spotlight Pipes," which delivered players in-game rewards using undisclosed odds. Until last year, Mario Kart Tour players could spend real money to repeatedly activate the pipes, in the hope they'd randomly produce useful upgrades. The suit alleges that Nintendo intentionally made the game difficult to proceed in without paying, using "dark patterns," an industry term for tricking consumers, to steer players toward spending more.

The suit was filed in March but emerged on the federal docket last week after it was moved out of state court. Its plaintiff, identified as N.A., spent more than $170 on Mario Kart Tour microtransactions, via his father's credit card, which was linked to their Nintendo user account. "Defendant's lootbox mechanism capitalized on and encouraged addictive behaviors akin to gambling," according to N.A.'s suit. It states that minors are particularly susceptible to systems that involve surprise rewards. Axios notes that Nintendo "discontinued use of spotlight pipes in Mario Kart Tour last September, switching to a system that lets players directly purchase items offered in its in-game shop."

Activision has sent cease-and-desist letters to two makers of popular fan clients for legacy Call of Duty titles in recent weeks. From a report: The move cuts off access to the many gameplay and quality-of-life improvements brought by these clients and stops what fans say is the only safe way to play these older games without the threat of damaging hacking by opponents. The first victim of Activision's recent efforts was SM2, a major Modern Warfare 2 modding project whose development started over two years ago.

Since then, the modding group has been working on updating that seminal 2009 release with new weapons, in-game perks, a redesigned UI, new streak and progression systems, and even a recent move to a more modern game engine. Those efforts stopped last week, though, before the mod could even release its first version. The SM2 Twitter account reported that "a team member received a Cease & Desist letter on behalf of Activision Publishing in relation to the SM2 project. We are complying with this order and shutting down all operations permanently."

Lia Haberman via her ICYMI Substack newsletter appears to have obtained a leaked marketing slide detailing the features of Intagram's rumored text-based Twitter competitor. The new app, codenamed P92, Project 92 or Barcelona, could arrive as soon as late June. The Verge reports: In the app, you'll see a feed, and you can make text posts up to 500 characters long with attached links, photos, and videos. The app looks pretty much like if you mixed Instagram and Twitter together, based on two screenshots included in the leaked marketing slide. And Meta will apparently have some good moderation controls from the start, "equipping you with settings to control who can reply to you and mention your account," the slide says. Any accounts you've blocked on Instagram will apparently carry over.

Perhaps most significantly, though, the new Instagram text app will have an element of decentralization as well. "Soon, our app will be compatible with certain other apps like Mastodon," Instagram's slide says. "Users on these other apps will be able to search for, follow and interact with your profile and content if you're public, or if you're private and approve them as followers." (Presumably that compatibility will come through ActivityPub, which Meta has been exploring alongside other tech companies.)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission sided with Starlink in a battle against Dish Network today, rejecting a Dish proposal that could have degraded Internet service for Starlink satellite users. In a 4-0 vote, the FCC decided not to authorize high-powered terrestrial mobile service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band that is already used by Starlink customer terminals for downloads. The vote "ensure[s] the present and future of satellite services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. We recognize that millions of people rely on services in this band -- and we want to see that continue," FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said at today's meeting. The band is also used for satellite TV.

In its announcement of the vote, the FCC said it "declin[ed] to authorize two-way, high-powered terrestrial mobile use due to a significant risk of harmful interference to existing and emergent services, particularly in the growing satellite broadband market." Dish already uses spectrum from the 12.2-12.7 GHz band for satellite TV and wants to use the band for cellular service as well. While the FCC rejected the mobile proposal, it said it would investigate the potential to expand terrestrial fixed use or permit unlicensed use in that spectrum. Specifically, the FCC will seek comment on allowing point-to-point fixed links in 12.2-12.7 GHz at higher power levels than the current rules allow and on "adding indoor-only underlay and unlicensed use." The agency also teed up a plan that could eventually allow mobile broadband in the adjacent 12.7-13.25 GHz band. "Thank you to the 100K+ Starlink customers who spoke up, the FCC voted to protect high-speed satellite Internet users from harmful interference," Starlink wrote on Twitter today.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: Bluesky Social, the popular new beta social network, is taking a big open-source step forward. On May 15th, 2023, it open-sourced the codebase for its Bluesky Social app on GitHub. This fits well with its plans. From the start, its owner, BlueSky Public Benefit LLC, a public benefit corporation, was building an "open and decentralized" social network.

Unlike Twitter, which is still tripping over its own open source feet, Bluesky client code is for anyone who wants to work on improving the code or use it as the basis for their own social network. Twitter's recommendation code, on the other hand, is essentially unusable. The Bluesky code, licensed under the MIT License, can be used now. Indeed, while it's been out for only about 24 hours, it's already been forked 88 times and has earned over 1,300 GitHub Stars.

While it's specifically the Bluesky Social app's codebase, it's also a resource for AT Protocol programmers. This protocol supports a decentralized social network. Its features include connecting with anyone on a server that supports AT Protocol; controlling how users see the world via an open algorithm market; and enabling users to change hosts without losing their content, followers, or identity. The code itself is written in React Native. This is an open-source, user-interface JavaScript software framework. It's used primarily to build applications that run on both iOS and Android devices.

Adi Robertson writes via The Verge: The Supreme Court has declined to consider reinterpreting foundational internet law Section 230, saying it wasn't necessary for deciding the terrorism-related case Gonzalez v. Google. The ruling came alongside a separate but related ruling in Twitter v. Taamneh, where the court concluded that Twitter had not aided and abetted terrorism. In an unsigned opinion (PDF) issued today, the court said the underlying complaints in Gonzalez were weak, regardless of Section 230's applicability. The case involved the family of a woman killed in a terrorist attack suing Google, which the family claimed had violated the law by recommending terrorist content on YouTube. They sought to hold Google liable under anti-terrorism laws.

The court dismissed the complaint largely because of its unanimous ruling (PDF) in Twitter v. Taamneh. Much like in Gonzalez, a family alleged that Twitter knowingly supported terrorists by failing to remove them from the platform before a deadly attack. In a ruling authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, however, the court declared that the claims were "insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS" for the attack in question. Thomas declared that Twitter's failure to police terrorist content failed the requirement for some "affirmative act" that involved meaningful participation in an illegal act. "If aiding-and-abetting liability were taken too far, then ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer," writes Thomas. That includes "those who merely deliver mail or transmit emails" becoming liable for the contents of those messages or even people witnessing a robbery becoming liable for the theft. "There are no allegations that defendants treated ISIS any differently from anyone else. Rather, defendants' relationship with ISIS and its supporters appears to have been the same as their relationship with their billion-plus other users: arm's length, passive, and largely indifferent."

For Gonzalez v. Google, "the allegations underlying their secondary-liability claims are materially identical to those at issue in Twitter," says the court. "Since we hold that the complaint in that case fails to state a claim for aiding and abetting ... it appears to follow that the complaint here likewise fails to state such a claim." Because of that, "we therefore decline to address the application of 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief." [...] The Gonzalez ruling is short and declines to deal with many of the specifics of the case. But the Twitter ruling does take on a key question from Gonzalez: whether recommendation algorithms constitute actively encouraging certain types of content. Thomas appears skeptical: "To be sure, plaintiffs assert that defendants' 'recommendation' algorithms go beyond passive aid and constitute active, substantial assistance. We disagree. By plaintiffs' own telling, their claim is based on defendants' 'provision of the infrastructure which provides material support to ISIS.' Viewed properly, defendants' 'recommendation' algorithms are merely part of that infrastructure. All the content on their platforms is filtered through these algorithms, which allegedly sort the content by information and inputs provided by users and found in the content itself. As presented here, the algorithms appear agnostic as to the nature of the content, matching any content (including ISIS' content) with any user who is more likely to view that content. The fact that these algorithms matched some ISIS content with some users thus does not convert defendants' passive assistance into active abetting. Once the platform and sorting-tool algorithms were up and running, defendants at most allegedly stood back and watched; they are not alleged to have taken any further action with respect to ISIS." "The interpretation may deal a blow to one common argument for adding special liability to social media: the claim that recommendation systems go above and beyond simply hosting content and explicitly encourage that content," adds Robertson. "This ruling's reasoning suggests that simply recommending something on an 'agnostic' basis -- as opposed to, in one hypothetical from Thomas, creating a system that 'consciously and selectively chose to promote content provided by a particular terrorist group' -- isn't an active form of encouragement."

The Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a case against Google that might have allowed more lawsuits against social media companies. From a report: The justices' decision returns to a lower court the case of a family of an American college student who was killed in an Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris. The family wants to sue Google for YouTube videos they said helped attract IS recruits and radicalize them. Google claims immunity from the lawsuit under a 1996 law that generally shields social media company for content posted by others. Lower courts agreed with Google. The justices had agreed to consider whether the legal shield is too broad. But in arguments in February, several sounded reluctant to weigh in now. In an unsigned opinion Thursday, the court wrote that it was declining to address the law at issue.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Google's new inactive account policy already has people up in arms. The company announced on Tuesday that accounts that have gone unused for two years will be deleted, and a lot of people are asking what exactly this means for YouTube content. There are probably millions of videos out there from dead and inactive YouTube creators -- would Google's new data policy mean deleting nearly two decades of online history?

A day later, Google now says there will be no digital burning of Alexandria. YouTube's creator liaison, Rene Ritchie, clarified on Twitter that Google has "no plans to delete accounts with YT videos." 9to5Google heard the same statement from a Google spokesperson.

That is great news, but that's also very vague and runs contrary to what all of Google's current documentation says, including the blog post. Can people keep a Google account alive forever with a single video? [...] It seems like the company is still figuring this out. "It doesn't make sense to delete old YouTube content," adds Ars' Ron Amadeo. "While inactive data for things like Gmail and Google Photos are nothing but a money pit, YouTube content is available to the public, and Google runs ads on those videos, so those videos make money. If there's no creator to share revenue with, that's even better! Culling old videos would not just damage YouTube as a platform, it would also hurt Google's bottom line."