Texas’ social media law lives. Here are Big Tech’s options.

Spoiler alert: None is good.

A photo of the Texas State Capitol building

All of the options facing platforms in Texas right now are bad ones.

Photo: Tamir Kalifa/Stringer via Getty Images

The tech industry’s worst nightmare came true Friday when the 5th Circuit upheld a law in Texas that prohibits platforms from moderating content on the basis of “viewpoint.” The on-again, off-again law had been blocked from taking effect twice before — first by a district court and more recently by the Supreme Court.

But the 5th Circuit’s decision had been a long time coming, and it wasn’t hard to predict which way it would go. During oral arguments in the case, one judge seemed skeptical of tech platforms’ power to patrol speech and questioned whether Twitter was even a website at all. “Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,” the court's decision reads.

Now, the plaintiffs in the case — industry groups NetChoice and CCIA — are hoping the Supreme Court will fix what they argue the 5th Circuit got wrong. And there’s good reason to believe the Supreme Court will be game: The 11th Circuit has already struck down a similar social media law in Florida. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to break the tie.

But it could be a while before that happens, leaving tech platforms operating in Texas with a slew of impossible decisions to make and questions to answer in the meantime. Here are just a few:

Can platforms just block Texas?

The Texas law — HB 20 — forbids social media companies that operate in Texas and have more than 50 million active users from censoring speech based on the speaker’s viewpoint. So, can those companies get around compliance if they just stop operating in Texas altogether?

Not so fast. HB 20 makes clear that platforms can’t censor users based on the fact that they live in Texas, meaning cutting Texas off from, say, Facebook or Twitter would violate the law as written. And in its decision, the 5th Circuit defended that provision of the law right along with the provisions related to viewpoint censorship. The court wrote that Section 230, which gives platforms wide latitude to moderate content and thus runs counter to the Texas law, “says nothing about viewpoint-based or geography-based censorship.”

All of which is to say: Platforms can’t just up and leave Texas without a fight. But as legal scholars have pointed out, it’s entirely unclear that a state can actually compel a company to do business in that state. “If Texas can do this, can Connecticut make In-N-Out finally open a local franchise?” Stanford professor Daphne Keller asked back in May, when the 5th Circuit first let the law go into effect. “Can states with harsh anti-gay laws penalize companies that close their local offices or cancel events?”

Will app stores stand for lax content rules?

The most obvious argument against the Texas law is that it could compel platforms to host hateful, vile posts — and the people who post them — because taking them down might look like viewpoint discrimination. The 5th Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that they’d be forced to give space to Nazis and terrorists under the law by accusing the platforms of having an ”obsession with terrorists and Nazis.”

But if platforms like Facebook and Twitter do allow all that speech to stand in Texas in order to comply with the law, will they risk being out of compliance with app stores’ terms? After all, Parler got booted from both Apple’s and Google’s app stores over its failure to adequately police content after the Jan. 6 riot. More recently, Google’s Play Store kicked off former President Trump’s app, Truth Social, over similar concerns about content moderation. Would the same thing happen to more mainstream platforms, or would app stores have to adapt too?

Is there any way to strike a middle ground?

For all of the restrictions the law puts on platforms’ ability to moderate speech, it does give platforms’ users the ability to restrict speech as they see fit. That, Keller also points out, could present an opportunity for compromise, where platforms give Texas users an unfiltered view but offer them easy ways to opt out of The Bad Place if they want to.

That, of course, would require quite a bit of technical investment to accommodate a law that’s still on uncertain legal ground.

How will advertisers react?

Tech platforms are having a hard enough time keeping advertisers happy, now that new privacy settings are preventing them from tracking users. How will brands feel knowing their shampoo ads are running right alongside violence and hate speech?

We’ve seen brands stand up to this kind of thing in the past. In 2020, civil rights groups led a mass advertiser protest of Facebook under the banner #StopHateForProfit. Other major advertisers ditched Google in 2017, after their ads started appearing on extremist videos. If anything goes on social media in Texas, will advertisers still want to spend their money there?

Should platforms wait to see what the Supreme Court does?

All of the options facing platforms in Texas right now are bad ones. Maybe the safest option is to simply stay the course, continue moderating content as if the Texas law doesn’t exist, risk the potential lawsuits in Texas and hope that the Supreme Court acts fast enough to fend them off.

That seems to be the posture the plaintiffs in the case are taking. “We are disappointed that the 5th Circuit’s split decision undermines First Amendment protections and creates a circuit split with the unanimous decision of the 11th Circuit,” Carl Szabo, NetChoice vice president and general counsel, said in a statement. “We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms and apps.”

That “when,” of course, is more like an “if.” But if history is any indication, this is precisely the fight at least some justices on the Supreme Court have been waiting for.


US issues sweeping new rules on chip-tech exports to China

The Biden administration rolled out new, wide-ranging export controls on the chips and equipment U.S. companies are able to sell to China.

The Biden administration’s new controls on chip exports represent a significant shift in U.S. policy related to China.

Photo: Chen Zhonghao/Xinhua via Getty Images

The U.S. unveiled a set of new regulations Friday that aim to choke off China’s access to advanced chips, the tools necessary to manufacture years-old designs, and the service and support mechanisms needed to keep chip fabrication systems running smoothly.

On a briefing call with reporters Thursday, administration officials said the goal is to block the People’s Liberation Army and China’s domestic surveillance apparatus from gaining access to advanced computing capabilities that require the use of advanced semiconductors. The chips, tools, and software are helping China’s military, including aiding the development of weapons of mass destruction, according to the officials, who asked to remain anonymous to discuss the administration’s policies freely.

Keep Reading Show less
Max A. Cherney

Max A. Cherney is a senior reporter at Protocol covering the semiconductor industry. He has worked for Barron's magazine as a Technology Reporter, and its sister site MarketWatch. He is based in San Francisco.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Why CrowdStrike wants to be a broader enterprise IT player

The company, which grew from $1 billion in annual recurring revenue to $2 billion in just 18 months, is expanding deeper within the cybersecurity market and into the wider IT space as well.

CrowdStrike is well positioned at a time when CISOs are fed up with going to dozens of different vendors to meet their security needs.

Image: Protocol

CrowdStrike is finding massive traction in areas outside its core endpoint security products, setting up the company to become a major player in other key security segments such as identity protection as well as in IT categories beyond cybersecurity.

Already one of the biggest names in cybersecurity for the past decade, CrowdStrike now aspires to become a more important player in areas within the wider IT landscape such as data observability and IT operations, CrowdStrike co-founder and CEO George Kurtz told Protocol in a recent interview.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.


Election markets are far from a sure bet

Kalshi has big-name backing for its plan to offer futures contracts tied to election results. Will that win over a long-skeptical regulator?

Whether Kalshi’s election contracts could be considered gaming or whether they serve a true risk-hedging purpose is one of the top questions the CFTC is weighing in its review.

Photo illustration: Getty Images; Protocol

Crypto isn’t the only emerging issue on the CFTC’s plate. The futures regulator is also weighing a fintech sector that has similarly tricky political implications: election bets.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has set Oct. 28 as a date by which it hopes to decide whether the New York-based startup Kalshi can offer a form of wagering up to $25,000 on which party will control the House of Representatives and Senate after the midterms. PredictIt, another online market for election trading, has also sued the regulator over its decision to cancel a no-action letter.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.

The Uber verdict shows why mandatory disclosure isn't such a bad idea

The conviction of Uber's former chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, seems likely to change some minds in the debate over proposed cyber incident reporting regulations.

Executives and boards will now be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up," said one information security veteran.

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If nothing else, the guilty verdict delivered Wednesday in a case involving Uber's former security head will have this effect on how breaches are handled in the future: Executives and boards, according to information security veteran Michael Hamilton, will be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up."

Following the conviction of former Uber chief security officer Joe Sullivan, "we likely will get better voluntary reporting" of cyber incidents, said Hamilton, formerly the chief information security officer of the City of Seattle, and currently the founder and CISO at cybersecurity vendor Critical Insight.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

Latest Stories