The internet, a vast digital frontier, faces a crucial crossroads. The Supreme Court is currently evaluating a significant case, pitting Texas and Florida against a consortium of major online platforms. The core issue? Whether these states can regulate online content, effectively dictating what users see and share. However, this binary framing – platforms or state control – is misleading. A more nuanced solution exists, empowering users and fostering a dynamic online environment.
Five unprecedented cases before the Supreme Court challenge the role of internet platforms and their relationship with the First Amendment. At the heart of this battle lie "must-carry" laws enacted by Texas and Florida. These laws attempt to force platforms like Facebook and YouTube to adhere to specific content moderation policies, essentially taking control of their editorial discretion.
While Texas and Florida argue for their right to regulate online speech, this approach poses a significant threat to free expression. Granting such authority to state governments sets a dangerous precedent, potentially paving the way for censorship and manipulation. Even if, as Texas claims, platform dominance allows them to "dominate public discourse," empowering the government to dictate online speech is not the answer.
Instead of handing control to governments or large tech companies, a better solution lies in fostering individual autonomy. Existing and emerging technologies offer promising avenues to empower users and dilute the power currently concentrated in the hands of platforms.
"Middleware" technologies are paving the way for user-centric control over online content. These tools enable individuals to choose from a range of competing content moderation services, each offering varying rules and approaches to ranking and removing content. Platforms like Block Party (Twitter), NewsGuard, SmartNews, and BlueSky are already incorporating this approach, allowing users to customize their online experience.
Decentralized social media platforms like Mastodon offer another promising solution. Users can choose a "node" that enforces their preferred moderation rules while still facilitating communication with users on different nodes with varying levels of strictness. Lawmakers can incentivize the development of such interoperable platforms, allowing users to maintain existing connections while enjoying greater control over content moderation.
The specific "must-carry" laws in question raise further concerns. Florida's law prioritizes specific types of speech, mandating platforms to carry content from "journalistic" sources, a definition so broad it encompasses websites like PornHub. Additionally, it restricts moderation of content related to political candidates, effectively privileging one type of voice over others.
Texas, on the other hand, seeks to grant platforms more leeway in removing certain types of harmful content, specifically harassment targeting individuals based on characteristics like race. However, it simultaneously prohibits removing pro-terrorist content or Holocaust denial, displaying inconsistencies in its approach.
Both laws impose broad and ambiguous regulations, potentially leading to unforeseen consequences. Texas's prohibition on platform discrimination between viewpoints could force platforms to host hate speech alongside its counterpoint, creating a hostile and harmful environment for users. Similarly, Florida's mandate for "consistent" moderation is open to interpretation, potentially silencing diverse voices and hindering genuine conversations.
Platforms confronted with these regulations face a harsh dilemma. They can either allow a deluge of currently prohibited content, potentially ruining user experience and jeopardizing revenue. Alternatively, they can choose to ban all discussions on sensitive topics, effectively silencing necessary discussions and stifling diverse perspectives.
These laws impact a vast array of platforms, not just social media giants. Texas's law, for example, would apply to services like Vimeo, WhatsApp, and Pinterest, while Florida's extends to Etsy, eBay, and Uber, potentially hindering their ability to curate user experiences.
Texas and Florida claim that upholding the "must-carry" laws is their only option to regulate online platforms. However, this argument ignores numerous possibilities. The Supreme Court can resolve these cases without condoning a free-for-all online environment. Existing legal frameworks addressing privacy and discrimination offer alternative approaches.
Furthermore, the court can adopt the principle of "less restrictive means," considering solutions that achieve legitimate goals without infringing on free speech. Technological advancements offer a crucial alternative: empowering users to control their online experience through user-centric tools and platforms.
