Social Media

Two FCC commissioners say social media companies' embrace of U.S. Supreme Court precedent is misplaced when it comes to their arguments in the challenges before SCOTUS of Texas and Florida social media laws (see 2309290020) that such platforms have a First Amendment right to censor users' speech. Writing last week in the Yale Journal on Regulation, Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington said SCOTUS has never held that the First Amendment gives dominant companies like big social media "a freewheeling right to censor others’ speech." Pointing to such SCOTUS precedent as its Turner decision, requiring cable systems to carry broadcast TV channels, the Republican commissioners said the high court has allowed the government to apply anti-discrimination requirements to corporations in ways consistent with the First Amendment. The commissioners said social media regulations like Texas' House Bill 20 "are easily distinguished" from regulations struck down on First Amendment grounds in decisions such as Tornillo, which involved a Florida law requiring newspapers to run partisan editorial content. "Indeed, HB20 touches none of the First Amendment third rails that were at play in those cases," they said. When considering such issues as market power and the degree to which the regulated entity makes individualized decisions about speech rather than being a common carrier of speech, "it is clear that the government can, in the appropriate case, apply anti-discrimination rules to social media platforms," they said. "Texas’s HB20 is one of those cases."

Southern state lawmakers stressed their concern for kids’ safety as they supported bills Thursday to require age verification for social media and pornography websites. At a Florida House Regulatory Reform Subcommittee, Chair Tyler Sirois (R) defended banning children from social platforms even if their parents would allow it. During a South Carolina House Constitutional Laws Subcommittee hearing, the state's attorney general, Alan Wilson (R), strongly supported blocking kids from porn websites.

Generative AI is expanding Big Tech’s data monopoly and worsening news outlets' financial crisis, Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., agreed Wednesday while hearing testimony about The New York Times Co. (NYT) lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI.

Florida could prohibit kids younger than 16 from creating social media accounts and let parents request ending the existing account of their children 16 and younger. HB-1 would have children 16-18 accept a disclaimer at login: “This application may be harmful to your mental health and may use design features that have addictive qualities or present unverified information or that may be manipulated by [insert platform name] or others for your viewing. This application may also collect your personal data to further manipulate your viewable content and may share your personal data with others.” State Rep. Tyler Sirois (R) introduced the bill Friday. In addition, HB-1 would require social websites to reveal content moderation policies, whether they use addictive design or deceptive patterns and consider "the best interests of platform users who are younger than 18 years of age when designing, developing, and providing services.” In addition, websites would have to say if they collect or sell personal information of those younger than 18. The Computer and Communications Industry Association raised concerns about the proposed law, with CCIA State Director Khara Boender saying, "This legislation raises similar issues to those in laws passed in [Arkansas] and [Utah], which are currently facing legal challenges due to constitutional concerns." Also Friday, Florida Sen. Lauren Book (D) introduced a children’s social media bill (SB-1430) with language similar to HB-1 about required disclosures, but without banning kids from using sites. State Sen. Joe Gruters (R) proposed a bill requiring “foreign-adversary-owned entities operating social media platforms” to "disclose the core functional elements” of their "content curation and algorithms.” Covered entities also would have to “implement a user verification system for each user and organization that purchases advertisements concerning social or political issues.” The system would have to verify buyers’ age, residency and citizenship and disclose the company's identity in ads. In Tennessee, state Sen. Mark Pody (R) unveiled legislation (SB-1643) requiring that websites verify that users trying to access pornographic content are at least 18 years old. Covered websites include social media platforms where more than one-third of content is “sexual material harmful to minors.”

An Ohio law requiring age verification to access social media runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, NetChoice said Friday. The tech industry group asked the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio to block the 2023 law from taking effect Jan. 15. Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted (R) lambasted the lawsuit as “cowardly but not unexpected.” Passed as part of Ohio's 2024-25 budget, the state law requires verifiable parental consent before kids under 16 can access social media (see 2307050064). Husted championed the measure (see [Ref:2303090051). Requiring Ohioans to submit sensitive personal data to age-verification services before they can share and receive information online violates the First Amendment, NetChoice argued. Also, the state law is too vague because it imposes a parental consent requirement for the internet broadly, the group said. And NetChoice complained about unclear definitions and descriptions in the law. “The law simply requires parental consent before children under the age of 16 sign up on social media and other online platforms,” Husted responded in a statement Friday. “In filing this lawsuit, these companies are determined to go around parents to expose children to harmful content and addict them to their platforms.” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) didn’t comment by our deadline.

Missouri legislators introduced a flurry of telecom and internet bills before their 2024 session started Wednesday. Rep. Chad Perkins (R) pitched HB-1995 to delete the Jan. 1, 2025, sunset date for the state’s 2018 small-cells law (see 1806040050), which preempted local governments on right of way in an effort to streamline 5G infrastructure deployment. Rep. Ben Keathley (R) offered HB-2057, clarifying that streaming content is exempted from paying video franchise fees. Two other bills would relieve broadband’s tax obligations. HB-2142 by Rep. Ben Baker (R) would provide a tax deduction for broadband grant funds for 2022 and later tax years. HB-2168 by Rep. Aaron McMullen (R) would provide sales and use-tax exemptions for machinery and equipment that provides broadband, starting Jan. 1, 2025. Another Baker bill would ban Missouri government employees from using or downloading on a state-owned device "any social media application that is owned, in whole or in part, by the Chinese government or any company that shares its user’s data with the Chinese Communist Party.” HB-2141, which would cover TikTok, wouldn’t "apply to military or law enforcement agencies when doing so is in keeping with the fulfillment of their duties." Rep. Josh Hurlbert (R) seeks to ban TikTok on school district-owned devices and district-provided internet access. In addition, the bill would halt use of the specified social media application(s) to "promote any district school, school-sponsored club, extracurricular organization, or athletic team." HB-2157 would also require social media companies to verify users' ages and restrict minors from opening accounts without parental consent. Moreover, it would restrict them from using "a practice, design, or feature" that they know, or reasonably should know, "causes a Missouri minor account holder to have an addiction to the social media platform." The bill includes a private right of action and state attorney general enforcement. It would also require school districts to develop internet safety policies.