SCOTUS hears 2 cases that could upend social-media moderation

Supreme importance… Yesterday, the US Supreme Court started hearing two free-speech cases that could transform social media. The cases made their way up to SCOTUS after Florida and Texas passed laws aimed at blocking social-media giants from removing users or moderating posts based on political views — even if those users violate a platform’s policies. Allegations of Big Tech censoring conservative views reached a boiling point after Meta, Twitter, and other platforms suspended former President Donald Trump’s accounts following the January 2021 attack on the Capitol. The Texas and Florida laws were introduced shortly after.

• Both sides: The states argue that social platforms are censoring users and violating the First Amendment. Tech companies argue that on their private platforms they have the right to moderate based on their policies.

What’s next… SCOTUS is expected to issue its decision on both cases by June, in the lead-up to a contentious presidential election. Social media has become a focus during election cycles, with big platforms serving as digital town squares. If the state laws are deemed constitutional, social-media companies say it would be a lot harder to remove users, moderate posts, and include additional context. They say that could lead to a slew of spam, extremism, and hate speech. There’s a moderation divide brewing:

• Blue states including California and New York have pushed for more oversight and accountability for users’ posts, passing measures encouraging platforms to remove harmful content.

• Red states including Florida and Texas argue that social-media cos should be treated as “common carriers,” like internet and cell providers, which would limit their power to moderate.