Is it big tech's responsibility to grant anyone the platform to say anything they like?
On May 24th Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis signed a state bill - entitled the 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' - intended to target how social media platforms go about regulating content. In remarks broadcast (somewhat ironically) on Facebook, DeSantis took aim at big tech firms including Facebook, Google and Twitter for the way in which they've shut down public debates of the merits of coronavirus lockdowns and the origin of the virus to begin with.
It seems he feels the actions of social media platforms has been unconstitutional and counterproductive:
"I would say those lockdowns have ruined millions of people's lives all around this country... Wouldn't it have been good to have a full debate on that in our public square? ... But that was not what Silicon Valley wanted to do." - Ron DeSantis
The intention of the bill is plain - that in future, tech platforms would be prohibited from suspending or banning political candidates with possible fines of $250,000 per day if the de-platformed candidate is seeking statewide office and $25,000 per day if the candidate is running for a non-statewide office. Perhaps inspired by the recent banning of his fellow Republican and former President Donald Trump from social media, it seems DeSantis is keen that his political colleagues don't suffer a similar fate in future, no matter how vocal they are in sharing their views, or how accurate or helpful those views are.
Is it legal?
The immediate response from tech companies and commentators alike has been clear and unequivocal. Wired magazine expressed their opinion in no uncertain terms, pointing out that the bill "almost certainly violates both the US Constitution and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act."
Aside from the validity of the bill in constitutional terms, CNN also pointed out that if passed into law without challenge the bill could prevent social media platforms from properly moderating the actions of trolls, extremists and even disgruntled internet users who theoretically could take legal action against the platforms if censored.
There's a fine line between users of social media platforms being given the freedom and having the confidence to express their opinions online, and being legally protected should those views become disruptive, misleading, dangerous or outrageously offensive. Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook in the wake of the Capitol riots in January this year when his views were deemed to have been partly responsible for inciting civil unrest - 'fake news' was a term largely of his making, one of many legacies from his presidency..
Most accept and expect that using online platforms to express their opinions obligates them to observe codes of reasonable conduct and to expect to be monitored to some degree. The bill proposed by DeSantis seeks to grant undue freedom for some to say exactly what they want, without fear of any consequence. Is that a freedom that should be protected so vigorously and by law?
The political perspective
Big tech firms are likely accustomed by now to being the focus of the attentions of politicians at either end of the political spectrum. Democrats have tended to argue that the big tech firms that operate social media platforms benefit from legal immunity under the Communications Act of 1934, claiming that plaforms don't do enough to monitor and limit the spread of offensive content.
Meanwhile Republicans like DeSantis and Trump before him (as well as many others who've been deplatformed) argue that platforms restrict too much content, particularly those from the political right.
A 2020 study by the Pew Research Center found that 90% of Republicans believed views were being censored, and 69% of Republicans believed social media companies “generally support the views of liberals over conservatives”. It's a long-standing issue and it seems that the bill proposed by DeSantis is the first time that a politician has actually taken this on earnestly.
How it unfolds and whether it is accepted into law remains to be seen, but the impacts could be felt by many more than just those using social media for political gain, depending on the outcome.