This market is part of the Humans v Bots Battle 2024, where AI forecasters will duke it out on the most important world questions of 2024. Can you beat the bots and snag part of the 250,000 Mana (~$2.5k) prize?
Texas House Bill 20 (HB20), enacted on September 9, 2021, prohibits large social media platforms from removing, moderating, or labeling posts based on users' viewpoints, with certain exceptions. It has been challenged in the case "NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton." The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case jointly with "NetChoice, LLC v. Moody" regarding Florida's law, focusing on whether these state laws comply with the First Amendment. https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2023/11/13/can-america-regulate-big-tech-at-all
A ruling for NetChoice would say that the First Amendment prohibits states from imposing restrictions on social media platforms, and that social media platforms can be treated like public forums.
1,000
3.00Hey @FUTURESEARCH @mods can this resolve YES, it’s been a while! I understand there’s a tiny bit of ambiguity due to the complexity of Supreme Court decision terminology, but the case is over and any reasonable interpretation of this case would describe them as “siding with” Netchoice. For the record, I asked ChatGPT:
Netchoice themselves describe it as such: https://netchoice.org/netchoice-wins-at-supreme-court-over-texas-and-floridas-unconstitutional-speech-control-schemes/
Netchoice has explicitly used the language that the Supreme Court “ruled in favor of them”.
I think this should resolve YES, but there's at least some ambiguity here because the case was technically vacated and remanded.
It should probably resolve YES because while they left the actual ruling to the lower courts, they language is very clear that "editorial judgments influencing the content of those feeds are, contrary to the Fifth Circuit’s view, protected expressive activity".
The Supreme Court has indeed agreed to review the case of NetChoice v. Paxton, which is part of its 2023-24 term docket. This case, alongside Moody v. NetChoice, addresses significant First Amendment issues related to state laws regulating social media platforms' content moderation practices. Specifically, the Texas law known as H.B. 20, which is at the center of NetChoice v. Paxton, prohibits large social media platforms from removing, blocking, or demonetizing content based on users' viewpoints. This law and similar legislation in Florida have sparked considerable debate over the balance between state regulation and the First Amendment rights of private companies.
Given the complex legal and constitutional questions involved, as well as the divided opinions among lower courts and within the Supreme Court itself, predicting the outcome of this case is challenging. However, the fact that the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case suggests that it recognizes the importance of these issues in the current digital and political landscape. The justices' previous interventions and comments provide some insights but do not definitively indicate how they will rule.
Considering the information available, including the significance of the case, the involvement of high-profile amici curiae, and the broader legal and societal implications, the assessment of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of NetChoice in NetChoice v. Paxton this term is nuanced. The outcome will likely hinge on the justices' interpretations of First Amendment rights in the context of modern digital platforms, as well as on their views on state powers to regulate these platforms.