The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Monday in two cases that could dramatically reshape social media, giving states like Texas and Florida control over what posts platforms can remove from their services. We are considering whether we should have the authority to do so. From the report: This high-stakes battle is about how millions of Americans get their news and information, and whether sites like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok can make their own decisions about how they moderate. This will give the nation's highest court a greater say in the matter. Spam, hate speech, and election misinformation. At issue are laws passed by both states that prohibit online platforms from removing or demoting user content that expresses their views, a bill both states have passed to prevent censorship of conservative users. argues that it is necessary.
More than a dozen Republican attorneys general argued in court that social media should be treated like traditional public utilities, such as landline telephone networks. Meanwhile, the tech industry argues that social media companies have a First Amendment right to make editorial decisions about what to display. As a result, opponents argue, they are similar to newspaper companies and cable TV companies. Legal experts say the case could lead to a major rethinking of First Amendment principles. A ruling in favor of the states could weaken or overturn decades of “compulsory speech” precedent that protects individuals from government speech orders, with far-reaching implications beyond social media. there is a possibility. Blair Levin, an industry analyst at market research firm New Street Research, said it's unlikely that social media companies will lose, but if they did, their business models would change immediately.