Disinformation researchers are concerned about the consequences of the judge’s order

Bond Benton, an associate professor of communications at Montclair State University who studies disinformation, described the statement as “a bit of a potential Trojan horse.” It is limited on paper to the government’s relationship with social media platforms, he said, but included the message that misinformation qualifies as speech and its removal as the suppression of speech.

“Before, platforms could just say we don’t want to host it: ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service,'” said Dr. benton. “This ruling will probably make platforms a little more careful about that now.”

In recent years, platforms have relied more on automated tools and algorithms to spot malicious content, limiting the effectiveness of complaints from people outside the companies. Academics and anti-disinformation organizations often complained that platforms were unresponsive to their concerns, said Viktorya Vilk, the director of digital security and free speech at PEN America, a nonprofit that supports free speech.

“Platforms are very good at ignoring civil society organizations and our requests for help or requests for information or escalation of individual cases,” she said. “They’re less comfortable ignoring the government.”

Several disinformation researchers feared the ruling could provide coverage for social media platforms, some of which have already scaled back their efforts to curb misinformation, to be even less vigilant ahead of the 2024 election. They said it was unclear how relatively new government initiatives that met the concerns and suggestions of researchers, such as the White House Task Force to address online harassment and abuse, would perish.

For Imran Ahmed, the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Tuesday’s decision underscored other issues: the United States’ “particularly fangless” approach to dangerous content compared to places like Australia and the European Union, and the need to rules for social media platform liability to be updated. Tuesday’s ruling cited that the center had made a presentation to the surgeon general’s office on its 2021 report on online anti-vaccine activists,”The disinformation dozen.”

“You can’t show a nipple at the Super Bowl, but Facebook can still broadcast Nazi propaganda, empower stalkers and bullies, undermine public health and enable extremism in the United States,” Ahmed said. “This court ruling exacerbates the sense of impunity faced by social media companies, despite being the main vector for hate and disinformation in society.”