Drew HarwellJul 2, 2024
Will Oremus
SCOTUS' ruling on social media was a bigger deal than it first seemed. Content moderation and ranking algorithms are now First Amendment-protected speech, and that has major implications for the internet. My newsletter today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/02/netchoice-scotus-content-moderation-speech/
Analysis | Supreme Court says content moderation is speech

The NetChoice opinion is a bigger deal than it might seem.

Washington Post
Jul 2, 2024 at 1:51pmWeb
Show threadJohn GordonJul 2, 2024

@willoremus

"majority opinion makes clear that forcing social media companies to carry certain posts is unlikely to be constitutional. But in declining to throw out the laws altogether, the court signaled that other aspects of those measures might be less problematic."

Seems not necessarily dumb?

Show threadLarry GarfieldJul 2, 2024

@willoremus This... sounds like it's actually a good thing?

One, it means you cannot penalize a provider/forum owner for moderating (algorithmically or otherwise), because that violates the provider's 1st Amendment rights.

Two, it establishes that the providers are responsible for the content they boost. It's speech, so hard to regulate, but it's not just a passthrough. It is "speech" by the company.

So laws on libel should apply to the "company's speech." (Courts may not get that, though.)

Show threadPaulAlanLevyJul 3, 2024

@Crell @willoremus

But Section 230

Show threadLarry GarfieldJul 3, 2024

@paulalanlevy @willoremus Says you cannot sue a company for "moderating wrong." Lately that means for not-moderating, but it also means for removing stuff you wish they hadn't. It was written to *allow* companies to moderate as they saw fit.

I've long argued that the algorithms shouldn't be subject to 230, because they involve curation, not just hosting. This ruling seems consistent with that.