Protocol | Policy

Conservatives want to treat Facebook like phone companies. It won’t work.

Conservatives want to regulate Facebook and other tech giants as common carriers. Here's why that's legally — and practically — improbable.

A digital billboard reading "Welcome to Facebook" displayed above a wide sidewalk with several pedestrians walking down it.

Conservatives want to treat tech giants like railroad and telephone companies.

Photo: Christoph Dernbach/Picture Alliance via Getty Images

After complaining for years about supposed political censorship on social media, conservatives have begun converging on a legal argument they say could remedy the problem: Treat tech platforms like railroads and telephone companies, and regulate them as common carriers.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the case in a recent concurrence. A former Trump administration staffer mounted the same argument in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal. And Florida lawmakers used the theory to undergird a restrictive social media law that was recently struck down in court.

The logic goes like this: Tech platforms like Facebook are so dominant in their markets and so central to the transfer of information today that they serve the same function that telephone and telegraph companies used to. Therefore, the thinking goes, those platforms should also be forbidden from excluding speech they find objectionable. "Nineteenth-century telegraph companies were treated as common carriers, and then telephone companies, and then some forms of television. Communications technologies change, and each is different, but the legal analysis still fits," the recent Journal op-ed read.

But for all the ink that's been spilled to make this argument, a closer read suggests this approach would be unworkable, not just from a legal standpoint, but from a public interest standpoint as well. "I find it hard to believe that anyone making those proposals has actually thought about the consequences," said Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center.

The social value

There are no hard and fast rules for what makes a common carrier, as John Bergmayer, legal director at the freedom of expression nonprofit Public Knowledge, explained in a blog post earlier this year. Historically, Bergmayer wrote, these restrictions applied to a much broader swath of private businesses, from shopkeepers to doctors. "Most of those requirements dropped away," Bergmayer wrote. "They remained for those areas where they were most socially valuable," like transportation and communications.

But the social value of forcing tech platforms to publish content that would otherwise violate their policies is questionable at best. If Facebook had to carry all the content it removes today, it would be practically unusable. After all, the biggest category of speech Facebook removes isn't political speech; it's spam. Where the company took action on 25 million pieces of hate speech last quarter, it took action against a whopping 905 million pieces of spam. And that's to say nothing of the tens of millions of pieces of nudity, graphic violence and terrorist propaganda it removed over the same time period.

A common carriage regime might prevent Facebook from banning certain political speech. But even if you're someone who wants that, you probably would not want to use Facebook anymore if every time you logged on, you were flooded with porn, beheading videos and ads for erectile dysfunction medication.

Forcing Facebook to carry all of those posts is a markedly different thing than forcing the telephone company to carry even offensive calls. "It doesn't ruin anyone else's experience of a telephone network that people might not like what other people are discussing on the phone," Bergmayer said. "[People are] mad at particular instances of content moderation where they think the platform got it wrong. You turn it into a common carrier and that problem goes away, but now you've got a thousand new problems that are all way worse."

One solution to that might be to create carve-outs for spam and other specific types of content, but constitutional experts say that would put any common carrier regulation on shaky legal ground. The whole point of imposing a common carrier regime on tech platforms would be to ensure no one's content is getting favored over anyone else's. "Common carrier laws typically don't have carve-outs. They apply to all content without regard for what it says," said Genevieve Lakier, a University of Chicago law professor, who specializes in speech and constitutional law.

Courts have repeatedly held that content-based regulations — that is, laws that favor or disfavor content based on its substance — are "presumptively unconstitutional" and subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. "It's a lawyer's way of saying it's really, really hard to justify," said Jeff Kosseff, assistant professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department. "You have to show there's a compelling government interest and that it's narrowly tailored."

The Florida law

The legal battles over Florida's recently passed social media law are particularly instructive in assessing how common carrier regulations on social media companies might struggle in court. That law prohibited social media platforms from banning or limiting the reach of politicians, and was almost immediately blocked.

Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and TechFreedom filed amicus briefs supporting a preliminary injunction against the law and cited a slew of legal precedent to back up their argument. Both groups pointed to a 1974 case in which a Florida political candidate sued the Miami Herald for refusing to publish his response to a series of critical editorials. The candidate, Pat Tornillo, argued the Herald was violating a Florida law that gave political candidates the right to have their responses to criticism published in newspapers.

The Supreme Court ended up striking down Florida's so-called "right-to-reply" law, finding that the law was an "intrusion into the function of editors" and an attempt to impose "a penalty on the basis of the content." The Court even grappled with the fact that newspapers were, at the time, extremely powerful and had undergone substantial consolidation, but ruled in favor of the free press all the same.

The landmark case, EFF and TechFreedom argue, applies just as readily to social media platforms as it does to newspapers. "Every court that has considered the issue has applied Tornillo to social media platforms and search engines that primarily, if not exclusively, publish user-generated content," the EFF wrote in its brief.

Another case cited by both groups revolved around the 1993 St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston, in which the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston was denied a place in the parade. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that requiring the organizer — a military veteran named John "Wacko" Hurley — to include the group in the parade would be a violation of the First Amendment. "[W]hen dissemination of a view contrary to one's own is forced upon a speaker intimately connected with the communication advanced, the speaker's [First Amendment] right to autonomy over the message is compromised," the court wrote in its opinion.

Thomas' view

Even the cases that Justice Thomas used to argue in favor of common carrier regulations are, as TechFreedom wrote, "positively brimming" with distinctions that make them "inapplicable to social media platforms."

In one such case, Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, the Supreme Court found that cable companies could be required to carry public broadcast stations. In another, PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, the court found that a shopping mall couldn't prohibit high school students from protesting on its premises. Both cases, Thomas wrote, suggest that "there is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated in this manner."

But, as TechFreedom laid out in its amicus brief, both cases come with caveats. For one thing, in the Turner case, the Court found that the law requiring cable companies to carry broadcast channels was actually content neutral, because the requirement wasn't based on the substance of the programming on those channels, but on the manner in which they were broadcast, which made them free to the public. A law like the one in Florida, by contrast, that deals specifically with political speech, would almost certainly be content-based and, therefore, would be subject to strict scrutiny.

The Turner case also hinged in part on the idea that cable companies deploy actual physical infrastructure, giving "the cable operator bottleneck, or gatekeeper, control over most (if not all) of the television programming that is channeled into the subscriber's home." The same can't be said for social media companies, TechFreedom argued. Facebook might be gigantic, but even someone who's banned from Facebook has plenty of other social media platforms to pick from and very little barrier to entry to join them.

In the Turner case, the court also considered how closely associated a cable company is with the messages broadcast on the channels it carries. The court decided in that case that "there appears little risk" that cable viewers would think the cable operators were endorsing every message carried by every channel. As TechFreedom pointed out, the same cannot be said for tech companies, who are regularly asked to answer for the messages that do and don't appear on their platforms.

The PruneYard case raised a similar point, with the court finding that the student protesters' beliefs would not likely be associated with the mall itself. And while the court found that the mall couldn't kick the students off its property, it did emphasize that the mall could impose "time, place, and manner regulations" to "minimize any interference with its commercial functions."

This, TechFreedom wrote, is precisely what tech platforms are aiming to do by moderating content. "No common carrier has ever had to serve customers utterly blind to their behavior," TechFreedom wrote. "Such carriers have always been entitled to refuse service, or bar entry, to anyone who misbehaves, disrupts the service, harasses other patrons, and so on."

What's notable about how some on the right are now embracing common carrier regulations for social media companies is that, historically, conservatives have fought such restrictions in other fields of tech, most notably in broadband. When the FCC reclassified broadband providers as common carriers in its since-overturned Open Internet Rule in 2015, conservative commissioners and legal scholars alike accused the FCC of egregious government overreach.

In the court case that followed, upholding the FCC's decision, then-D.C. circuit court Judge Brett Kavanaugh himself wrote a dissent, arguing that the FCC's net neutrality protections were a violation of internet service providers' First Amendment rights. "He sounded an incredibly skeptical note about this kind of regulation in general," Lakier said.

Net neutrality proponents have almost universally slammed Kavanaugh's take in that case. Still, it's hard to see how Kavanaugh could argue that ISPs are entitled to exercise editorial discretion, but social networks are not, suggesting not even the conservative Supreme Court justices are united in Thomas' view.

Of course, just because this is the way courts have thought about common carriers in the past doesn't mean it's the way they'll continue to think about them in the future, particularly as pressure mounts in legal circles on the right. "There's a lot of energy among the conservative legal elite to push the doctrine in this area. But the doctrine is really not where they want it to be," said Lakier. "But how far movable is it, is the question."

Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories