Hello and welcome to the tech policy podcast. I'm your sometime host, Berensoka, interviewing your usual host, Corbyn Bartol, to talk about Florida. Florida is attempting to regulate the speech of social networks, as are many states. But Florida is doing it in a way that is,

one might say clever, one might say a little more sophisticated than what some other states are

doing. One might also say just even more unconstitutional in different ways. Specifically,

using analogies to campaign finance law, claiming to restrict the ability of social media

sites to moderate the content of political candidates. So Corbyn and I wrote a piece about this in

lawfare and Corbin is here to tell us about the law, what it does, and why it's unconstitutional.

So Corbin, welcome back.

It's good to be here. It doesn't actually feel much different being on the other side.

Well, the tables have turned, and we'll see how things go today. So tell us about this law. What

does it do? This is an ambitious law. You use several adjectives.

I would use the word ambitious.

Which, by the way, I'll say, is interesting because at the very end, it says it will not conflict with federal law, which you wonder if it makes the whole thing pointless.

But let's put it on that.

Yes.

It allows users of large social media websites to opt out of what the law calls post-prioritization

or shadow banning algorithms.

And you and I have discussed what's the best shorthand for that.

And I think it's, it ensures that if you want it, you can have everything be chronological in your news feed,

no kind of algorithms giving reach or amplifying.

It says that you have to describe your terms of service in detail, if you're a large social media website,

and that you have to keep those terms relatively static. You cannot change

them more than every 30 days. The law says that you cannot de-platform a political candidate

...