ADP uses data-driven insights to design HR solutions to help businesses of all sizes think beyond today,

so they can find more success tomorrow.

ADP, always designing for HR, talent, time, payroll, people.

From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

The Supreme Court takes up a case on Section 230, the legal immunity for Internet platforms,

but the justices seem uncomfortable with both the positions advanced by the parties.

Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal.

We are joined today by my colleagues, columnists Alicia Finley, and Kim Strassel. Welcome to you both.

The case on Tuesday morning at the Supreme Court was Gonzales V. Google.

It is brought by the family and the state of a 23-year-old American student who was killed in a 2015 ISIS attack.

And the argument is that Google, which owns YouTube, the video website,

aided and abetted ISIS because its algorithms recommended ISIS videos to users.

And according to them, that recommendation by the algorithms is not protected by Section 230, this platform immunity that is in U.S. law.

And the justices seem to be trying to grapple with a way out of this conundrum.

Let's start with Justice Elena Kagan.

Every other industry has to internalize the costs of this 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 of this 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.

And let's hear from a justice on the other side of the aisle, proverbially speaking. This is Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

...