This is well argued. One problem I see with it, though, is this. Social media companies' content moderation algorithms are fundamentally built to maximize engagement and therefore profit, not primarily to express the companies' own opinions. This, it seems to me, places them in the realm of commercial speech, to which we do permit some statutory limitations.
I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this -- just arguing that these companies' free speech rights are not sacrosanct.
Shouldn’t the public have its own platform then? A PBS-like non-profit social media platform where We the People are not silenced by moneyed interests?
Of course, Big Tech companies have a constitutional right to free speech. That does not imply they have a right to censor opinions they disagree with. To use a few obvious analogies. Does AT&T have a “right” to listen to all phone calls and cut off anyone/anything it doesn’t like? Of course, not. Does the Post Office have a “right” not to deliver mail it disapproves of. So long as the mail is legal, the answer is no. Big Tech companies are no different. They should be forced out of the censorship business. Before them, we had Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Now we have Facebook. According to the people running Facebook, simply telling the truth will result in your account being deleted (this actually happened to Richard Dawkins).
"The left has been skeptical of these platforms ever since Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in 2016,...". Annnnnnnd then the left woke up and realized that they basically control these platforms.
I don't see how your description of the "thumb on the scale" as "speech" comports with the famous Section 230, which says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
This is well argued. One problem I see with it, though, is this. Social media companies' content moderation algorithms are fundamentally built to maximize engagement and therefore profit, not primarily to express the companies' own opinions. This, it seems to me, places them in the realm of commercial speech, to which we do permit some statutory limitations.
I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this -- just arguing that these companies' free speech rights are not sacrosanct.
Shouldn’t the public have its own platform then? A PBS-like non-profit social media platform where We the People are not silenced by moneyed interests?
What do you think?
Of course, Big Tech companies have a constitutional right to free speech. That does not imply they have a right to censor opinions they disagree with. To use a few obvious analogies. Does AT&T have a “right” to listen to all phone calls and cut off anyone/anything it doesn’t like? Of course, not. Does the Post Office have a “right” not to deliver mail it disapproves of. So long as the mail is legal, the answer is no. Big Tech companies are no different. They should be forced out of the censorship business. Before them, we had Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Now we have Facebook. According to the people running Facebook, simply telling the truth will result in your account being deleted (this actually happened to Richard Dawkins).
"The left has been skeptical of these platforms ever since Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in 2016,...". Annnnnnnd then the left woke up and realized that they basically control these platforms.
I don't see how your description of the "thumb on the scale" as "speech" comports with the famous Section 230, which says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."