The Era of Big Tech Minimalism: Missouri v. Biden Gives Platforms Cover to Retreat From Election Integrity Efforts

Nora Benavidez is senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights at Free Press, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty at a Senate Hearing in 2017. Source Platform accountability and First Amendment advocates received a significant blow on the Fourth of July: U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty issued a ruling and preliminary injunction limiting contact between Biden administration officials and social media platforms over certain online content, temporarily banning officials from meeting with the companies over posts that violate their policies against hate and lies. The ruling attempts to use “free speech” as the shield to protect users and content on platforms. But its effect will only give more cover to social media platforms to do less, as they reduce the size of trust and safety teams and roll back election integrity efforts ahead of 2024. Social media platforms are already notoriously opaque – offering little insight into their content moderation practices and enforcement decisions. Less is known about the discriminatory impacts of the machine learning tools they develop and employ. With the ruling from Judge Doughty, transparency is likely to remain elusive. But here’s what we do know: Social media platforms have the resources needed to disrupt the spread of hate and anti-democratic disinformation — especially that which targets marginalized users who are part of various protected classes. Strong content moderation, like the “break-glass” measures Meta employed ahead of 2020 elections, really can mitigate the virality of harmful, violative content. When Meta turned those features off after…The Era of Big Tech Minimalism: Missouri v. Biden Gives Platforms Cover to Retreat From Election Integrity Efforts