The FTC Wants More Control Over Online Speech. That’s A Big Problem
from the not-how-this-is-supposed-to-work dept
Late last month, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a request for public comment on so-called “tech censorship.”
America has a vibrant and successful market-driven system for content moderation, enabled by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows platforms to set their own rules, while users decide where to engage. That’s why conversation on Bluesky feels different from Reddit, which feels different from Truth Social—each platform competes on moderation, governance, and community standards. This diversity has created a vibrant marketplace of ideas, fueling the success of both large and small companies, while cementing the U.S. as the global leader in internet technology and online speech. Undermine this system, and you don’t get more free speech—you get fewer platforms, less competition, and more centralized control over online discourse.
The FTC has based its investigation of “tech censorship” on a belief that tech companies are intentionally restricting access of individual users to their platforms, based on the content of the users’ posts or their affiliations. In the words of the press release, the FTC pointedly seeks information on “how this conduct may have violated the law.” As the FTC moves forward, it should be careful not to base its decisions on unverifiable reports, to the detriment of the digital economy that has been responsible for tremendous American innovation and growth.
The decision whether to include certain content or users on the platform is also a basic First Amendment right. In the Supreme Court’s 2024 NetChoice opinion, the Court stated that online platforms’ choices about what material to publish “constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment” that are “protected expressive activity.” As CTA CEO and Vice Chair Gary Shapiro has noted, “America’s tech success needs the First Amendment… It empowers U.S. tech companies by protecting their ability to innovate without fear of censorship, enabling diverse voices and perspectives to contribute to tech progress.”
These are all substantive legal issues that the FTC should consider in response to its request for public comment. Unfortunately, the process the FTC has established does not seem likely to result in a balanced and robust record. To be clear, federal agencies seeking public comment is a good thing. Taking enforcement actions against named companies based on unproven allegations, without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves, is not.
The FTC’s process in this proceeding raises concerns that companies won’t get a fair shake. Basing enforcement on unvetted—and often anonymous—complaints is not reliable, and when the FTC receives thousands of comments, as it did in response to its proposed noncompete rule, staff cannot verify the factual assertions in each one. Moving forward on this basis could harm companies’ protected interests in choosing what kind of content appears on their platforms, and result in worse outcomes for American consumers.
Instead, FTC leadership should focus on policies that help unlock innovation from American tech companies. That includes advancing all Americans’ shared interest in free speech.
David Grossman is CTA’s VP of Regulatory Affairs
Filed Under: content moderation, ftc, public comments, section 230
Comments on “The FTC Wants More Control Over Online Speech. That’s A Big Problem”
Oh come on...
Musk will have a say in it, and he loves free speech! Also, he has the best interests of ordinary Americans at heart. Rejoice, everyone loves our leader with a beautiful plan. You know, because he’ll put our best people on it. Well, other than the really best ones that have been fired or are leaving because they don’t want to deal with the bipolar irrational administration in charge, so, the other best people that will always say yes to his amazing brilliance!
Calling our consolidated social media a vibrant and diverse marketplace is insane.
(Mind you, this is not 230’s fault. More to do with issue like network effects leading to lock in, lack of antitrust, etc)
Re:
And organizations like the CTA are against any sort of antitrust with teeth. My guess is that they’d be against anything the FTC did, no matter how reasonable, and then use the “innovation” buzzword same as telecoms use it when they try to make excuses for why Net Neutrality is bad.
Re:
If you strictly focus on Facebook, X/Twitter, and Reddit, of course it’s going to look monopolistic. If, however, you include smaller platforms like Mastodon, Bluesky, and others, then you see the diversity in the market. The only exception here is the advertising realm which really is monopolostic and limited to mostly Facebook and Google, but that’s… the online advertising market and not the social media market.
Ever since Elon Musk drove X/Twitter into the ground, there’s actually been a nice injection of new services that have been brought into prominence. If you can believe it, competition in the social media landscape has actually improved in recent years.
Re: Re:
I think those smaller platforms help, but I still wouldn’t really call it diverse. In a lot of cases you still don’t have a ton of alternatives.
That said, I do think size matters a lot for healthy competition. Mastodon was never really putting much pressure on Twitter to improve. (And I say this as someone who is on Mastodon). And for social media in particular, stuff like network effects matter even more. People aren’t on Reddit because they like Reddit’s content moderation over Lemmy. They’re there because Reddit has a moat. Same for e.g. Facebook.
Although, some of that may come down to how you classify them. If you lump it all together as “social media”, there’s a decent amount of options. But personally, I tend to consider stuff like Facebook/Twitter to be different markets. They perform different functionalities, which is why FB had to launch Threads.
For most people, I’m not even sure moderation even is considered, outside of the full on Musk Nazi extreme. There’s too many other factors that preclude it.
Why would that be an exception? I’d call that unhealthy for basically the same reasons. FB and Google have something like “only” 20% and 40% of the digital advertising market, respectively, according to a quick google (I thought it was closer to 80%, but the point stands). In a lot of cases, that’s more options than most social media choices, if you count the smaller remaining 20-40% or so.
Oh, it’s definitely gotten better. I just wouldn’t really call it healthy, yet. Although if we keep on this trajectory, it may get there. And Twitter is kind of an example why. If Elon had gone slightly less insane, Bluesky/Threads probably never gets off the ground. In a healthy/vibrant market, it shouldn’t haven taken that much to give them a chance.
Out of the different markets, the only one I would really call vibrant/diverse is messenger apps like Whatsapp. Twitter clones are getting close, I think you’d want to see ~2 more big players at least, though.
And I think the ultimate litmus test is how well are they able to enshittify. That tells you how much lock in they have. Companies in healthy vibrant markets lose their lunch if they try to enshittify in the case of real competition. It’s not a coincidence that Whatsapp is healthier, because it’s the easiest to swap in and out.
Re:
That’s not what he said, though. He said that section 230 allows speech in such a way that many different companies, both large and small, can compete on their execution of it.
Re: Re:
What exactly do you think
America has a vibrant and successful market-driven system for content moderation
each platform competes on moderation, governance, and community standards. This diversity has created a vibrant marketplace of ideas, fueling the success of both large and small companies,
Are saying? It’s literally talking about a vibrant and successful market system?
He is saying that, but he’s also making claims about a vibrant market system to bolster it.
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be missing the “for content moderation” part in your understanding of what he meant. It’s just one aspect of the social media landscape being addressed. It’s not saying every social media company is great. It’s saying that if you don’t like ExTwitter, you can go to Bluesky, and 230 allows platforms to host and moderate your speech without fear of legal reprisals.
Re: Re: Re:2
I get that, but in order to have a vibrant/diverse market on the content moderation aspect, you kind of need diversity more broadly first, no? That one aspect is downstream of diversity in general. You can’t really have diversity in content moderation if it’s undiverse overall
That part is fine, I just wouldn’t call that a diverse/vibrant amount of choice. It’s more than 0, sure, but it’s still pretty darn limited, so calling it diverse/vibrant is overselling it a bit (which, again, not really 230’s fault, it’s doing what it’s supposed to be in supporting that diversity, there’s just other factors that impinge)
Re: Re: Re:3
No, I wouldn’t say that. A diverse market on the content moderation aspect exists because 230 enables it. The diversity of the offerings extends from that because 230 allows the little guys to survive.
There are a lot of smaller options that aren’t ExTwitter, Meta, or Reddit. You’ve got Bluesky, Lemmy, Pixelfed, Loops, and a bunch more I’ve never even heard of. The smaller options are nicer as long as you’re not trying to reach a wider audience, and in my experience, that gives you more authentic interactions. But your mileage and preferences may vary. I personally preferred the pre-Facebook era with Compuserve and AOL forums and BBS and IRC chats and LiveJournal. MySpace was kind of the beginning of the end of the non-visually focused era of social media. It felt like there were better interactions because it wasn’t just people shilling their personal brands while corporations shilled their 20+ ads in between.
Re: Re:
Question: Since when has Arianity ever attempted understanding of anything except the simplest concepts?
Re:
How is it consolidated when there are like 3 huge companies and countless small ones out there? It’s not like Facebook or Twitter are the only game in town anymore.
They’ll use this to chip away at section 230, surely.
Meanwhile the UK may be about to completly ban the display of NSFW material as per some very recent proposals, right after the OSA has gone into effect, as if they weren’t satisfied screwing over platforms enough.
I hate living in the censorship timeline.
Re:
Take heart! You seem to love to complain and if all this bad stuff happens, you’ll never run out of material to complain about!
Re: Re:
And how is anyone going to complain about anything online if their government bans everyone in their country from accessing the internet, dipshit?
Re: Re: Re:
KOSA is also going to be talked about in a hearing in the house’s energy and commerce committee again soon.
That one isn’t too surprising though, we all knew they’d try to bring it back again in some form. Question is if it can survive the courts if it passes, still.
Re:
It helps to source the actual proposal to keep people better informed. Here, from the list of publications on this bill, for those who want to dive into it.
Re:
The UK laws are falling apart and the proposals are very likely to fail. Many platforms are fighting the UK laws.
Re: Re:
Not enough of them, the laws are still in effect.
And they will have it because the congress wants to destroy the internet.
Re:
No they won’t! Call congress and tell them not too!
Re: Re:
People have told them no over and over again and they refuse to listen.
Not under this administration.
I don’t think that it’d be sane to not look at this in the broader context of the ongoing authoritarian takeover and weaponization of the federal government that’s going on.
They deserve no trust that any powers given would be used wisely, and this particular one would certainly be used to attack platforms that they don’t like. So, no.
Re:
Unfortunately for us, consent is a foreign concept to these people.
If you need to ask “how this conduct may have violated the law,” you can’t clearly haven’t found any violations. Wannabe looking for more ways to claim they’ve been abused.
you dont even know the law you are charged with enforcing??
In the words of the press release, the FTC pointedly seeks information on “how this conduct may have violated the law.”
Its your job to know what violates the law. Its not a question of public opinion. We have written law, not just make it up as you go.
Re:
To be fair, this is Trump’s FTC, so “make the law up as you go” seems appropriate for an administration whose leader believes his word is law.
How might this affect US social media internationally?
I can’t see some other nations putting up with this clown show much longer. Anyone have any thoughts on how this might impact companies like Xitter, Google and Meta in the international arena?