🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made waves last year when he issued a concurring opinion advocating that leading social media platforms shouldn't have a legal right to remove "lawful, but awful" content from their platforms.
He argued they should be treated as common carriers, like your phone or internet company, that "must carry" their customers' content. Since then, some conservatives in red states, and commentators in this publication, have advocated for forcing social media companies to host hate speech, misinformation, and spam.
If these MAGA Republicans succeed, it won't just affect newsfeeds in red states. Most platforms we use to connect with friends or catch up on the latest headlines will be rendered unusable as they're overrun with dangerous and offensive posts.
Last year, Facebook removed over 20 million posts containing COVID-19 misinformation—not even counting what the platform took down on election lies, climate denial, and other conspiracies. Twitter, in the same year, removed over 700,000 tweets promoting self-harm. Then there are the millions of posts, photos, and videos that major platforms removed containing vile content ranging from violence to racism to harassment.
Turning these platforms into common carriers would violate their legal right to moderate this content. When most American users log into their social media accounts, shocking and harmful posts aren't what they want to see, and no one in America should be forced to play host to such vile content.
But under common carrier treatment, Twitter would have to host Ye's antisemitic rants for his audience of over 31 million followers, and YouTube would be forced to keep up dangerous anti-vax conspiracy videos circulating online.
Beyond what's best for consumers, arguments for designating social media companies as common carriers don't pass legal muster. Advocates like Samantha Fillmore are arguing for common carrier treatment based on the false assumption that tech companies are either passive "bulletin boards" that simply host content, or active publishers curating content on their sites. The truth is that social media is a lot more like a restaurant—a gathering place for people to enjoy a business' services and socialize.
Just as a restaurant can post a "no soliciting" sign outside its door, or mandate you must wear shoes to enter their establishment, so too can online platforms set clear rules of the road to use their service. Twitter can delete racist tweets that violate its community guidelines, and Meta can shut down white nationalist Facebook groups that foment hate; it's the same as kicking out an unruly patron for harassing other customers.
Supporters for common carrier treatment also mischaracterize the impacts of deplatforming. When a utility like an internet service provider cuts a customer off from service, it often leaves them with no other options available. Social media platforms don't function that way.
Banning someone from Twitter for spouting hateful content doesn't leave them voiceless. Having a Facebook post removed for violating community guidelines certainly doesn't prevent a user from turning to myriad other popular online forums, like GETTR, Parler, Truth Social, Rumble, and 4Chan.
In fact, conservative-focused social media platforms are even getting celebrity attention and engagement. Parler raised $20 million at the beginning of this year and is now in talks to be purchased by Ye. GETTR attracted tons of new users when podcaster Joe Rogan joined the platform in January, and Truth Social boasts two million active users.
The bottom line?
Social media platforms don't function like utility companies and applying outdated regulations to a distinct industry would cause more harm than good for users. There's decades of First Amendment case law backing this up.
As the Supreme Court is expected to rule on online content moderation this session, lawmakers and judges alike shouldn't ruin social media by making them common carriers. Content moderation allows us to safely connect with family and our communities online—and our government shouldn't prohibit that.
Adam Kovacevich is the founder of a center-left tech industry coalition called Chamber of Progress. Adam has worked at the intersection of tech and politics for 20 years, leading public policy at Google and Lime and serving as a Democratic Hill aide.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
