This is a great example of NYT's bias against tech[1], because they somehow interpreted the (IMO very reasonable) court's decision[2] that the "aiding and abetting" terrorism requires specific intent. I quote the relevant sections from the ruling:<p>> The phrase “aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance” points to the elements and factors articulated by Halberstam. Those elements and factors should not be taken as inflexible codes but should be understood in light of the common law and applied as a framework designed to hold defendants liable when they consciously and culpably “participate[d] in” a tortious act in such a way as to help “make it succeed.”<p>> Defendants’ mere creation of their media platforms is no more culpable than the creation of email, cell phones, or the internet generally. And defendants’ recommendation algorithms are merely part of the infrastructure through which all the content on their platforms is filtered. Moreover, the algorithms have been presented as agnostic as to the nature of the content. At bottom, the allegations here rest less on affirmative misconduct and more on passive nonfeasance. To impose aiding-and-abetting liability for passive nonfeasance, plaintiffs must make a strong showing of assistance and scienter. Plaintiffs fail to do so.<p>[1] <a href="https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf</a>