States are taking the lead on regulating Big Tech platforms such as Facebook and Google, advancing rules regarding censorship, data privacy, algorithms, and advertisements.
Social media censorship and content moderation has been a particularly heated area of tension between Democrats and Republicans nationwide. Members of Congress have challenged top social media executives from companies, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter, regarding their rules for moderating content and potential bias in their algorithms.
Congress is debating multiple bills to beef up data privacy and to overhaul Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a provision that protects social media companies from liability for content posted by their users.
As states such as Texas, Florida, Utah, and North Dakota push for laws to reduce censorship and states like California and Virginia implement laws to protect consumer data privacy, pressure is increasing to create national standards for both issues rather than a patchwork of state regulations.
Texas
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Republican state senators announced a bill on Friday that will “help prohibit social media companies from censoring Texans based on the viewpoints they express.”
According to the Texas Legislature, Senate Bill 12 would allow Texans to get back online if a social media platform suspends or blocks their account based on their political or religious views.
Abbott said the bill would “prevent social media platforms from canceling conservative speech,” a complaint lodged by many conservatives after former President Donald Trump was banned from most major social media platforms for his role in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attack.
“Too many social media sites silence conservative speech and ideas and trample free speech. It’s un-American, Un-Texan, and soon to be illegal,” Abbott wrote in a tweet Thursday night.
DEMOCRATIC TOP REGULATOR SAYS BREAKING UP BIG TECH COULD A GOOD, ‘CONSERVATIVE’ SOLUTION
Florida
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida’s Republican Legislature in February proposed legislation billed as protecting online speech from Big Tech overreach.
The legislation known as the Transparency in Technology Act, includes protections from unfair changes to platform rules and terms of service, requires platforms to tell users why their accounts are suspended or banned, and requires that algorithmic bias on behalf of a candidate be disclosed.
The bill would allow users the opportunity to opt out of algorithms and enable news organizations and qualified political candidates to have equal access to users without intrusion from algorithms.
If passed, the legislation would create harsh penalties and fines for tech platforms that violate the law by banning a political candidate or favoring one candidate over another.
“Under our proposal, if a technology company de-platforms a candidate for elected office in Florida during an election, that company will face a daily fine of $100,000 until the candidate’s access to the platform is restored,” stated DeSantis.
Florida Republicans in February also introduced another bill that would give residents the option to opt out of the data collection by online platforms and would force Big Tech companies to disclose what kind of user data they collect, store, and sell.
The bill would also enable Floridians to ask that platforms delete their data or fix data that is incorrect.
This legislation is similar to a 2018 data privacy law passed in California, which only applies to businesses with a global annual revenue of at least $25 million.
Virginia
Virginia in late February passed the Consumer Data Protection Act, only the second comprehensive state data privacy law in the United States after California’s 2018 law of the same kind, the California Consumer Privacy Act.
The law will only apply to companies that control or process the data of at least 100,000 local users or process at least 25,000 Virginians’ data and garner more than 50% of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data. The law will have several broad exemptions for nonprofit groups, institutes of higher education, and organizations governed by health insurance laws.
The bill will also give online users the ability to choose not to have their personal data collected for targeted advertising and to require consent for their data to be collected and processed.
One key difference between the bill and California’s data privacy bill is that Virginia’s does not include a provision for a private right of action, meaning individual consumers cannot sue Big Tech companies under the bill. Enforcement of the law will be mostly left up to the state attorney general.
LEADING BIG TECH CRITIC JOINS BIDEN WHITE HOUSE, SIGNALING CONFRONTATIONAL APPROACH
Utah
Utah’s Republican-controlled state Legislature is strikingly close to passing a bill that would force social media companies to be more transparent in how they moderate content on their platforms.
Utah Republican senators say the bill will make it easier and fairer for residents to express their opinions.
However, critics of the legislation say it is unconstitutional, violates the First Amendment, and could lead to a number of onerous lawsuits.
The bill requires that platforms annually provide clear rules of the road regarding their content moderation practices, give notice if a resident’s account access is restricted, allow users to appeal a decision to have content removed, and have an independent review to look over content moderation practices.
The bill outlines that the Utah attorney general would review social media complaints filed with the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, and the attorney general would then have the option to take action against a social media company based on the terms of the law’s language.
The bill has passed the Utah state House and Senate and now heads to the governor for final approval.
North Dakota
North Dakota state Republican lawmakers in January introduced legislation that would hold Big Tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter liable if they censor people on their platforms.
The bill, called “an Act to permit civil actions against social media sites for censoring speech,” is the state’s attempt to circumvent Section 230.
The bill will only apply to social media platforms with more than 20 million active users that have been in existence for at least one year. The platforms would be “liable in a civil action for damages to the person whose speech is restricted, censored, or suppressed, and to any person who reasonably otherwise would have received the writing, speech, or publication.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The punishment for censoring users would include restoring the blocked content and statutory damages of up to $50,000.
The North Dakota bill’s lead sponsor is Republican Rep. Tom Kading, who introduced the bill after a number of major social media platforms banned Trump in January.
