[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zle7WmajLNw[/embedyt] [embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zle7WmajLNw[/embedyt]
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody was in Washington DC this week, attending a hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court challenging what her office calls “Big Tech Censorship.”
Moody has been leading the way on a multi-year legal challenge to SB 7072, which would ban social media companies from censoring, shadow-banning and post prioritization in a way that is inconsistent and unfair, de-platforming U.S. political candidates or journalistic enterprises, and requires social media platforms to meet certain requirements when restricting the speech of users.
“Social media is the new town square, but the big tech CEOs who control these platforms argue they should have unfettered power to silence voices they don’t agree with, de-platform people who challenge corporate media narratives, and shadow ban candidates who don’t share their Silicon Valley values,” said Moody.
The AG’s office has been focused on how much the government has intruded and co-opted with social media platforms that silenced speech on anti-covid policies etc.
Besides AG Moody, several other State Attorneys General have blamed big tech for not being transparent about their rule and policies.
One of the provisions Moody supports is passing legislation forcing big tech to open up about their content moderation practices, giving users notice of changes to their policies, and allowing citizens to sue platforms when treated unfairly.
“The bill also provides an avenue for the state to bring action against Big Tech if the platforms do not meet the statutory requirements under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,” said the AG’s office.
But many feel if the government were to pass legislation dealing with “free speech” it would be an overreach from DC regulators on how private companies may conduct business.
Others argue that free speech among social media companies could be harmed if the government came in and chose winners and losers of what could be posted and what may be deemed to be a violation if the company decided to censor a post they may find to be offensive.
Author
