Page 2: No protection for Disney in Florida

Contents

However, the protection against exclusion from online platforms for media does not apply to journalists, but only to large media companies – and even there, not to companies that operate theme parks. This is a deliberate kick at Disney, which dared to criticize Florida's governor for banning the mention of homosexuality in school lessons.

In addition, there are restrictions on how the online providers covered must treat all users. Terms of use must be applied uniformly and changes would be allowed no more than once every 30 days. Interventions such as the blocking of postings, the provision of notices, the reduced distribution of postings or the blocking of comments is only permitted after explicit notification to the respective user in individual cases. In addition, users are entitled to exemption from any algorithms, review of blocking decisions and insight into the access figures for each individual own or third-party post.

If a post is from a large media company (except theme park operators), political office holder or candidate, or if a post deals with an office holder or candidate, shadow-banning and unpaid prioritization are not permitted at all. If online providers violate the law, they face severe penalties, claims for damages and exclusion from public contracts.

The content of the censorship law in Texas

Although Texas' law (known as HB 20) attempts to focus on traditional social networks at its core, its content-related provisions go much further. Censorship is defined as any discrimination against a user's expression: "'Censor' means to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression."

All of this is prohibited based on content or based on residence in Texas or a part of the state. Even users who express themselves in a frowned upon manner outside the platform may not be discriminated against on the platform. Social networks would therefore also have to host people who, for example, publicly call for the overthrow of the democratic system or condone racial discrimination. Contractual waivers of such "protection" are invalid.

There are few exceptions; for example, an operator may not take action to protect children unless requested to do so by relevant institutions. Even the threat of violence may only be blocked in certain cases.

Similar to Florida, users could face penalties and lawsuits. In contrast to Florida, however, the Texas law would have an effect beyond the state's borders. Not only are residents and visitors to the conservative state eligible to sue, but also companies from other states that do business in Texas. This requirement is easily met. Social network operators also fear that they will no longer be able to withdraw from Texas, as this alone would possibly be punished as illegal censorship.