The Media Lied About Meta's $25 Billion Verdict

The Government Just Found a New Way to Censor You
SUPPORT MY WORK:
Buy a paid subscription to my newsletter at usermag.co
Support my work on Patreon: patreon.com/taylorlorenz
Meta was ordered to pay a staggering $25 billion in a New Mexico lawsuit. But nothing about this landmark case is about protecting consumers. Instead, it's about the government gaining censorship powers over online speech.
In this episode of Free Speech Friday, I sit down with Trace Mitchell, lead counsel for technology and free expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), to unpack the $25 billion Meta verdict and its potentially devastating implications for online free speech.
The New Mexico case has largely been portrayed as a privacy and consumer protection victory. But that's completely false.
Trace explains how state attorneys general are increasingly using consumer protection laws to censor what people can say online, why these legal tactics encourage social media companies to censor more speech, and how politicians across the political spectrum are using government power to pressure tech platforms to censor content that they don't like.
We also discuss government jawboning, First Amendment protections, Facebook censorship, the role of automated content moderation, the future of Section 230, and why the consequences of this lawsuit extend far beyond Meta and Mark Zuckerberg.
In this episode
• Why New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $25 billion

• How the verdict could have reached $219 billion

• Why this lawsuit raises serious First Amendment questions

• How consumer protection laws can be used to pressure social media companies

• Why government lawsuits could lead to more censorship on Facebook and Instagram

• How both Democrats and Republicans pressure tech platforms

• What ordinary internet users stand to lose

• Whether Congress and the courts can stop government jawboning