On this week's on the media, if I tweet something very slanderous about you, you can sue me,

but you can't sue Twitter. But what if my tweet is so hilarious and gets so many likes

that their algorithm puts it at the top of everyone's feed and shows it to everyone,

then could you sue Twitter? The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases that could change

the internet as we know it, by dismantling a law known as Section 230. In a world without 230,

we would see people who believe they've been defamed by a Me Too post, bringing lawsuits.

Plus, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had unmatched access to the Trump White House.

She became a lightning rod for critics. People use this word access as if it implies some kind of

a transaction. You know, we talk to people. That's what journalists do. You're talking to me right now.

And I'm sure that we people will criticize you for it. Plus, how big law became big business

all after this.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media. I'm NPR Media correspondent David Fulkenflick,

sitting in for Brook Gladstone. This week, we learned that two cases are heading the Supreme

Court that have the potential to upend the way the internet works. It starts with 23-year-old

Noemi Gonzalez. She was one of 130 people who was killed in Paris during an ISIS terrorist attack

way back in 2015. The first is Google V Gonzalez. Her family is arguing in court that YouTube helped

to spread ISIS's violent message because its algorithms suggested extreme content to users

based on the previous videos that they had watched. The other one is Twitter V Tom Neh,

which claims that platforms are eating and abetting acts of terrorism by spreading ISIS content

online. And it's a big test of an old law section 230. That's the name of the quarter-century

old law that shields tech companies from liability for any content posted on their platforms.

In a nutshell, it says if I tweet something very slanderous about you, you can sue me,

...