AI: Supreme Court on Social Media Content

...AI likely to stir up the mud even more

All eyes again on the Supreme Court vis a vis tech/internet/AI, due to a big case that just got debated. And it’s all clear as mud. But it’s important for tech, internet and AI, so let’s dig in.

As the WSJ reports in “Supreme Court Questions State Efforts to Regulate Social-Media Content”:

“Justices weigh Florida, Texas laws that limit platforms’ ability to moderate posts”

“The Supreme Court sounded dubious Monday of state laws requiring online platforms such as Facebook and YouTube to publish nearly all user content, although several justices suggested that the ability to remove noxious social-media posts should not mean tech companies are free to block personal communications such as Gmail or chat messages.”

“The court heard nearly four hours of argument to determine the constitutionality of a pair of state laws that seek to prevent online platforms from moderating users’ posts. By the end, it seemed clear the court was unwilling to accept either side’s conception of what social media is: an edited publication entitled to full First Amendment freedoms; or a common carrier like a phone company that must transmit information without discriminating among its users.”

There’s a lot legal nuance at play, and the discussion appeared robust with thoughtful queries from both sices of the ideological divide on the court. And the eventual result may be a narrow decision that continues the debate in future cases. As the Washington Post summarizes in its version of the story:

“Throughout the marathon arguments, the justices struggled to identify a specific path for resolving the challenges to the state laws. They seemed interested in suggestions from Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, who urged them to rule narrowly that the laws interfering with content placement decisions are unconstitutional, while leaving open for another day questions about other aspects of the laws.”

The Vox had a clarifying take on the underlying legalities worth reading:

“Social media exists in somewhat of a gray area between a telephone company and a magazine. Like a phone company, social media platforms ordinarily allow nearly anyone to use their service and to say what they want to say using that service. But, like a magazine, they do exclude some content they fear will turn off other users or discourage advertisers from buying ads on their site.”

“That said, there is a very strong argument that social media is enough like a magazine to prevent the Florida and Texas laws from taking effect — both of which seek to prohibit social media sites from pulling down content or banning users because of the viewpoint expressed by that user. (Texas’s law explicitly bans “viewpoint” discrimination by the big three social media companies. Florida’s law is more ambiguous, but appears to do the same.)”

In a world where the AI Tech Wave is poised to meaningfully accelerate the AI augmented content ahead of us, the machinations of this and other cases before the court on this subject remains very relevant. It’s certainly going to exponentially stir up the mud. Stay tuned.

(NOTE: The discussions here are for information purposes only, and not meant as investment advice at any time. Thanks for joining us here)