Political Tech
In the absence of federal action, states are writing the rules for social media platform accountability.
NewsOnScale Staff
April 15, 2026
Florida passed SB 7072 in 2021, giving the state attorney general power to sue platforms that deplatform political candidates. Texas passed HB 20 the same year, prohibiting large platforms from censoring users based on viewpoint. California responded with legislation requiring platforms to publish and consistently enforce their content moderation policies.
The Supreme Court addressed the Texas and Florida laws in Moody v. NetChoice in 2024, sending the cases back to lower courts without definitively resolving the constitutional questions. The result is ongoing uncertainty about what states can require of platforms.
A coherent federal framework for platform accountability does not exist. Congress has held hearings. Members have introduced bills. None has passed.
## What meaningful accountability requires
Transparency requirements should mandate that platforms disclose content moderation policies in machine-readable format and publish aggregate data on enforcement actions. Transparency does not restrict platform discretion. It makes the exercise of that discretion visible and auditable.
Appeals processes should require meaningful human review of automated enforcement decisions with written explanations for adverse decisions.
Coordination disclosure should require platforms to disclose when adverse actions against specific accounts are taken in coordination with other platforms or based on shared data. Cross-platform coordination is the least visible and most difficult to document form of suppression.