Its open season on Americas digital media marketplace, withboththe left and right lining up to take regulatory shots at tech platforms, but for very different reasons. If both sides get their way, the result will be a more politicized media sector and unprecedented government interference with freedom of speech.
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and Apple have all become political pinatas for federal and state policymakers, with legislation and lawsuits launched seemingly on a weekly basis. But there is considerable confusion in the complaints both parties make about Big Tech.
Democrats want tech companies doing more to limit content they claim is hate speech, misinformation, or that incites violence. Republicans want online operators to do less, because many conservatives believe tech platforms already take down too much of their content.
The only thing unifying both sides is a desire for greater regulatory control of media. In todays hyper-partisan world, tech platforms have become just another plaything to be dominated by politics and regulation. When the ends justify the means, principles that transcend the battles of the day like property rights, free speech and editorial independence become disposable. These are things we take for granted until theyve been chipped away at and lost.
Is there any way to make both sides happy without undermining the digital economy, which has been dominated globally by American firms for over a quarter century?
Thats unlikely, but it hasnt stopped lawmakers from introducing a flurry of bills to weaken or eliminate protections afforded bySection 230, which limits liability for platforms that host user-generated content. Implemented in 1996, it has served asthe cornerstone of Americas ascendancyin the digital world andhelped spur an avalanche of innovation. Gutting it would put all that at risk.
Without admitting it, both sides are really at war against the First Amendment, which protects the editorial decisions made by private companies. To be sure, there is problematic content to be found on digital media platforms, and there aresome legitimate complaintsabout overzealous takedown policies and lack of transparent standards. That does not mean there is an easy policy fix to those problems, however. Butcourts have held repeatedlythat the First Amendment protects efforts by private media firms to devise their own approaches.Just last week, a Texas judge blocked a law that sought to limit social media platforms editorial freedoms. That followed a court in Floridaenjoining a similar lawthis summer.
Critics like to paint large tech companies as nefarious overlords out to destroy civilization. In reality, the problems we see and hear on modern platforms reflect deeper problems in our society. If these companies are to be blamed for anything, its making human communication so frictionless that every person now has a soapbox to speak to the world. Thats both a blessing and a curse. With unbounded speech comes many wonders but also many problems.
Now, large digital intermediaries are expected to make all those pathologies go away through some magical Goldilocks formula whereby they get content moderation just right. Its an impossible task with billions of voices speaking. Bureaucrats wont do a better job refereeing these disputes, and letting them do so will turn every content spat into an endless regulatory proceeding.
It is particularly surprising that someconservatives are joining the choruscalling for common carrier regulations orFairness Doctrine-like speech mandates, which would let government micromanage speech platforms. In this debate,they areinviting comprehensive political control of communications platforms, which is antithetical to a limited government philosophy.
Moreover, why would conservatives believe theyll benefit from more regulation? Even if one accepts the notion that social media platforms discriminate against conservative speakers or viewpoints, will freshly empowered bureaucrats really help them push private platform content moderation decisions in a more pro-conservative direction? The administrative state historicallyhas not been the friendof conservative viewpoints, and regulators are not suddenly going to become more sympathetic to them.
Theyd more likely be shooting themselves in the foot. There has never been more opportunity for conservative viewpoints than right now. Each day on Facebook, the top-10 most shared links aredominated by punditssuch as Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino, Dinesh D'Souza and Sean HannitySean Patrick HannityLeft and right take aim at Big Tech and the First Amendment Rittenhouse says he's destroying gun used in fatal Kenosha shootings Dr. Oz expected to run for Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican: reports MORE. Right-leaning content isshared widely on Twittereach day. Websites like Dailywire.com and Foxnews.comget far more trafficthan the New York Times or CNN.
Conservatives should push formore competition and choices,not more regulation and litigation. They should again embracethe vision President Reaganset forth in 1987, when he vetoed a bill to reestablish the Fairness Doctrine: History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.
It remains the principled path forward.
Adam Thiereris a senior research fellow at theMercatusCenter at George Mason University and author of Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance.
More:
Left and right take aim at Big Tech and the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill