Big Tech's Tightening Grip on Internet Speech

Gregory M. Dickinson

2023-06-05

Abstract:Online platforms have completely transformed American social life. They have democratized publication, overthrown old gatekeepers, and given ordinary Americans a fresh voice in politics. But the system is beginning to falter. Control over online speech lies in the hands of a select few -- Facebook, Google, and Twitter -- who moderate content for the entire nation. It is an impossible task. Americans cannot even agree among themselves what speech should be permitted. And, more importantly, platforms have their own interests at stake: Fringe theories and ugly name-calling drive away users. Moderation is good for business. But platform beautification has consequences for society's unpopular members, whose unsightly voices are silenced in the process. With control over online speech so centralized, online outcasts are left with few avenues for expression. Concentrated private control over important resources is an old problem. Last century, for example, saw the rise of railroads and telephone networks. To ensure access, such entities are treated as common carriers and required to provide equal service to all comers. Perhaps the same should be true for social media. This Essay responds to recent calls from Congress, the Supreme Court, and academia arguing that, like common carriers, online platforms should be required to carry all lawful content. The Essay studies users' and platforms' competing expressive interests, analyzes problematic trends in platforms' censorship practices, and explores the costs of common-carrier regulation before ultimately proposing market expansion and segmentation as an alternate pathway to avoid the economic and social costs of common-carrier regulation.

General Economics,Computers and Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper primarily explores the issues arising from the increasing influence of large tech companies (such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter) in controlling speech on the internet. As these platforms become central to American social life, their censorship of online content has also become more stringent. However, this censorship has raised public concerns about freedom of speech, especially when these platforms begin to limit or block certain users' voices.

The paper points out that while large tech companies pursue their own commercial interests, they are also shaping the culture of online communities. Although the initial intention of these companies might be to purify the online environment, their practices may lead to the suppression of marginalized groups' voices. Additionally, since these platforms hold vast amounts of personal information and social activity data of users, their discourse power is almost undeniable.

To address this issue, the author discusses a possible solution by drawing on the traditional public carrier principle, requiring large tech companies to treat all users equally, similar to how railroads and telecommunications companies operate. However, the author also highlights potential problems with this solution, including possible interference with market mechanisms and increased compliance costs. Finally, the author proposes another approach, suggesting that market expansion and segmentation could avoid the economic and social costs associated with implementing public carrier regulations.