Image Source: Pixabay

HB 20, a new Texas law, prohibits social media platforms with more than 50 million users in the U.S. from moderating content on the basis of “viewpoint.” It creates a catastrophic new liability for tech platforms serving Texas, such as Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR) and LinkedIn (MSFT)) which the law says cannot be excluded from service. This is headed for SCOTUS.

At the heart of the matter is a profound lack of understanding about what a website is, what an internet service provider is, what a common carrier is, and what world we actually live in. Read about this case and tell me how it is possible that (in 2022) our legal system lacks the intellectual framework to discuss Al Gore's "information superhighway." We're going to discuss this all day on discord.gg/shellypalmer, so please join the conversation.

Meanwhile, you can read more about the case below:

Yesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a lawsuit over HB 20, a bizarre law effectively banning many apps and websites from moderating posts by Texas residents. The court granted Paxton a stay on an earlier ruling to block the law, letting HB 20 go into effect immediately while the rest of the case proceeds. The decision was handed down without explanation. But court-watchers weren’t necessarily surprised because it followed an equally bizarre hearing earlier this week — one that should alarm almost anyone who runs a website. And without intervention from another court, it’s going to put social networks that operate in Texas at legal risk.

HB 20, to recap a little, bans social media platforms from removing, downranking, demonetizing, or otherwise “discriminat[ing] against” content based on “the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It applies to any “internet website or application” that hits 50 million monthly active users and “enables users to communicate with other users,” with exceptions for internet service providers and media sites. Social networks also aren’t allowed to ban users based on their location in Texas, a provision clearly meant to stop sites from simply pulling out of the state — which might be the simplest solution for many of them.

This is all happening because a judge doesn’t believe YouTube is a website.

The Monday hearing put Paxton and a NetChoice attorney in front of Fifth Circuit judges Leslie Southwick (who voted against the majority), Andrew Oldham, and Edith Jones. Things were dicey from the beginning. Paxton argued that social media companies should be treated as common carriers because of their market power, which would require them to treat all content neutrally the way that phone companies do, something no established law comes even close to requiring. In fact, thanks to a Republican repeal of net neutrality laws, even internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon aren’t common carriers.

Continue reading on The Verge.