Government

Read original article

Big Tech titans clashed with conservative-led states yesterday in two Supreme Court cases that could strip social media companies of much of their power to moderate content.

In the cases NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, trade groups that represent social media sites including Meta and Google are challenging state laws in Florida and Texas that would bar tech companies from 1) removing content on their social media sites that could be seen as political and 2) banning accounts based on the viewpoints they share—even if they violate user agreements.

Here’s what each side argued before the high court yesterday:

• Attorneys for Texas and Florida say the laws (designed largely to shield conservative voices from moderation) protect people’s First Amendment rights against big companies’ ability to remove and shadowban content they deem harmful.

• The social media companies maintain that they need to be able to remove disinformation and other harmful content, citing examples like spam, pro-terrorism speech, and the Tide Pod Challenge of 2018.

The decision is expected by June. During yesterday’s oral arguments, the justices appeared skeptical of the states’ laws and their arguments that deplatforming counts as censorship. But if the court does uphold the Texas and Florida laws, the social media companies’ bipartisan public and private sector allies say hate speech would flood platforms like TikTok and Facebook, likely driving advertisers away. Another option for the sites, if the court’s decision forces them to allow all opinions, could be to prohibit entire topics—like race or gender—from being discussed at all.