content moderation (10. 868)

With the recent onslaught of US supreme course cases leaving us a little overwhelmed, it was difficult to unpack this coda in the form of an injunction imposed by a district judge in Louisiana (another Trump appointee) against federal agencies from communicating with social media. Under appeal, the temporary ruling bars the government from working with Facebook and others to redress posts hosted that propagate false claims that could undermine public confidence in matters of health and election integrity and could seriously curtail the ability to fact-check and steer the narrative away from conspiracy theories and unfounded claims in the upcoming presidential election. Pitting fighting disinformation for public safety against “free speech” and the grievance of some conservative elements have for social media’s bias against them, the suit claims that the government overstepped its bounds by rallying to deplatform posts that questioned the risk or origin of COVID (emboldened by the concession it might have come from a Chinese laboratory), the efficacy of protective measures or whether the Biden administration is legitimate, competent departments including the press secretary, Justice, the FBI and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention are barred from reaching out directly to platforms or engaging with third-parties who research the effects of media on public perception. Though unclear how accustomed government agencies were with accessing social media in the past (and the ruling does at least promise to reveal the scope and regularity of contact), it does seem clear that a blanket restriction will limit the government’s ability to shape the narrative and combat disinformation and will bear heavily on the 2024 presidential race.