USA: Supreme Court will determine the future of social networks – 02/25/2024 – World

The Supreme Court of the United States begins this Monday (26) to judge two actions that will determine the future of social networks. The highest court in the United States will analyze actions challenging laws approved in 2021 in Texas and Florida to, according to lawmakers, combat alleged censorship imposed by big tech on conservative voices.

Florida law prohibits social networks from banning candidates for political office and “hiding” their posts. Texas law prevents companies from discriminating against users for their “viewpoints.” At stake is the ability of social networks to moderate content.

That is, the Supreme Court will decide whether Facebook, YouTube, X and TikTok are more like telephones and railroads or newspapers.

The court can accept the Texas and Florida governments’ argument that social networks are public benefit companies that provide essential services and need to serve all citizens equally, without discrimination — in the same way that a railroad cannot prevent a person from riding the train because of their political position and a telephone company cannot lower the volume of calls made by people who have certain characteristics.

If this occurs, companies may be prevented from removing posts, for example, from people who deny the effectiveness of vaccines or who question the existence of the Holocaust.

The court could also go in the opposite direction and decide that social networks are not a public utility service because users have options – if they don’t like X, they can turn to networks like Truth Social or Gab, for example. In other words: in this scenario, the networks function like newspapers, which have the right to make editorial decisions about what content they will —or not— broadcast and how prominent they will give each piece of news. In this case, they can remove videos advocating anorexia or suicide and praising Adolf Hitler – content that is not necessarily illegal, but that violates the platforms’ rules of use.

The cases before the Supreme Court are yet another manifestation of polarization in the United States. The laws in Texas and Florida assume that social networks censor conservatives, discriminate against right-wing politicians and promote more progressive content.

The Florida legislation, signed into law in May 2021 by Governor Ron DeSantis, was a direct response to Donald Trump’s suspension of then-Twitter and Facebook. The now former president was banned from networks for broadcasting content inciting violence that would have contributed to the attacks on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in which his supporters tried to reverse the result of the 2020 presidential election, which gave victory to Joe Biden. The invasion left 5 dead in Washington and is considered the most serious attack on US democracy in its modern history.

“Many in our state have already suffered from censorship and other tyrannies in Cuba and Venezuela. If Big Tech censors apply their rules inconsistently to discriminate in favor of Silicon Valley’s dominant ideology, they will now be held accountable,” DeSantis said at the time of the sanction.

In addition to prohibiting the “deplatforming” of candidates, the law requires each company to publish the criteria used to moderate content and also allows Florida citizens to sue big tech.

Three days after the governor approved the law, NetChoice, an association that brings together companies such as Meta, Google and TikTok, filed a lawsuit asking for the legislation to be suspended. The argument is that it violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects freedom of expression — in this case, the freedom of private companies to decide what speech they allow, or not, without government interference.

“This is a frontal attack on the First Amendment and a government intervention in the free market of ideas, something that would be unthinkable for traditional media, bookstores and libraries,” said the entity. “Just as Florida can’t tell the New York Times what editorials to publish or Fox News what interviews to air, it can’t tell Facebook or YouTube what content to disseminate.”

The Biden administration, which normally pushes for more regulation of big tech, this time sided with the platforms.

After a district court issued an injunction suspending enforcement of the law, Florida’s attorney general appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the injunction — prompting the state of Florida to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Texas law was enacted in September 2021. It prohibits censorship based on the user’s point of view or location. “Like the telegraph companies of old, social media giants use their control over the modern public square to direct and muzzle public debate,” said Republican Party-affiliated Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Less than two weeks after the approval of the Texas law, NetChoice filed a new lawsuit contesting it, also based on the First Amendment. A district court blocked the law, but Paxton appealed, and an appeals court reinstated the law. The entity that represents the companies appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices begin hearing oral arguments this Monday, but the final decision is expected only in June or July. Whatever the verdict, it will impact internet regulation in general.

If they decide to uphold the laws, this will greatly restrict companies’ ability to moderate content and could make social networks even more toxic.

If it is considered that the companies are not of public benefit or that the laws violate the platforms’ freedom of expression, it could make many other attempts to regulate big techs unfeasible.