Opinion: On social media content moderation, a tale of two Paxtons

Last September, after a court ruled in favor of HB20, a Texas law that would prohibit social media platforms from moderating users' content based on their viewpoint, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that, "Big Tech's reign of endless censorship and their suppression of conservative viewpoints is coming to an end."

His victory lap was a celebration of efforts by MAGA Republicans to limit the ability of online platforms to curb the spread of harmful content and misinformation on their services.

These efforts by far-right lawmakers have become so commonplace, they're no longer surprising. The Trump-led Republican party has made it clear they'll do whatever it takes to stop online platforms from removing dangerous and hateful content that's beneficial to Republican causes.

What is surprising, though, is that Paxton and other MAGA republicans like Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody recently joined a lawsuit against Meta alleging the opposite premise—that online platforms aren't doing enough to moderate their platforms for minors.

Putting aside the extensive efforts by Meta to protect children and teens, the MAGA Republicans who joined the suit against Meta appear to be undercutting their fellow AGs' case. The very tools that Paxton and Moody want internet platforms to use to "protect kids" in the Meta lawsuit are the same ones they've asked the Supreme Court to eliminate.

NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody will be SCOTUS' most significant internet cases this term, and will be a critical turning point in the struggle to protect minors from online threats. The Paxton case revolves around Texas law HB20, which forbids online platforms from moderating users' content. While Paxton and Moody contend that HB20 protects the First Amendment rights of Texans, it would actually open up Americans—including kids—to a deluge of lawful, but awful content online.

For example, if Texas' HB20 is allowed to stand, the law would prohibit social media companies from taking down content that expresses a user's "viewpoint." But there are lots of violent, hateful, or blatantly misleading viewpoints that teens and even adults shouldn't have to see when they log in to social media. In fact, during consideration of HB20, Democrats raised concerns that the bill would prevent social media platforms from taking down anti-Semitic and terrorist content. That's the law that Paxton is arguing the Supreme Court should uphold.

Contrast that with Paxton's efforts in the AGs' lawsuit against Meta. The case against Meta alleges that Meta hasn't done enough to limit kids' exposure to harmful or inappropriate content online.

There's a worthwhile debate policymakers should engage in over what empirical research says about the impact of social media on minors and users, and how social media can better protect minors without isolating marginalized communities. But the bottom line is this: If Ken Paxton wants social media companies to moderate more content for minors, a great first step would be stopping his crusade for a law that will make social media companies liable for every post they take down.

Meta's sweeping approach to child protection relies on tools that help detect and report content victimizing children. But HB20 would kneecap technologies like digital filtering that protect kids from inappropriate content, negative influences, cyberbullying, and misinformation. While Paxton and Moody have characterized these tools as "censorship" in their fight to uphold HB20, the fact is that these tools are what enables content moderation at scale.

Harmful online content can have real-world consequences. If online platforms lose the ability to remove such content, it may lead to a surge in violence, racism, and conspiracy theories. Americans, including children, don't deserve to be force fed violent posts online, even if they express a viewpoint.

Paxton's recent lawsuit against Meta, alleging the platform has failed to adequately moderate content for minors, is fundamentally incompatible with his legal efforts that dismiss content moderation as “censorship.” While that hypocrisy, and its impact on teens online, may be lost on Paxton, we can only hope that the Supreme Court and other federal courts will take note.

Kovacevich is the founder of tech industry coalition Chamber of Progress. He has worked at the intersection of tech and politics for 20 years, leading public policy at Google and Lime and serving as a Democratic Hill aide.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: A tale of two Paxtons: AG fights social media content moderation even as he sues for more of it