Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios
People of all political stripes — including supporters of President Trump — are frustrated with the way tech and social media platforms moderate content and want the government to act, per comments submitted to the Federal Trade Commission.
Why it matters: Under President Trump and an FTC entirely run by Republicans, the consumer protection agency is looking to redefine what constitutes anticompetitive or deceptive action, as an attempt to fight what's seen as tech's longstanding censorship of conservative viewpoints.
Driving the news: In February, the FTC started soliciting public comment about "how technology platforms deny or degrade users' access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law."
- The FTC urged users who have been "banned, shadow banned, monetized or otherwise censored" to comment.
What they're saying: As of Monday morning, the docket had received more than 2,600 comments, from a wide range of voices.
A sampling:
- People complaining about platforms like TikTok and Instagram removing their posts with unclear explanations, having their accounts removed entirely without explanation, or websites de-indexed from Google Search.
- Self-proclaimed QAnon and 2nd Amendment influencers, along with people angry about the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, saying they were suspended or kicked off popular platforms for their content.
- A bipartisan group of political consultants who wrote that social media platform's ever-changing rules around online political advertising have silenced political speech.
Some people urged the FTC to drop the matter entirely. "[Federal agencies] have no business and no authority to censor digital media content that is critical of any government or government agencies," one user wrote.
- "That is the very definition of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Stop it! Stop it right now!"
The big picture: Historically, the FTC does not regulate online speech, unless that speech is deceiving users in a commercial context — like promising product results that can't be delivered or tricking consumers into spending money.
- The FTC knows this, and is therefore being careful in how it describes the inquiry. The announcement says taking down certain content may "harm consumers, affect competition ... or [be] the product of anticompetitive content."
- FTC chair Andrew Ferguson has said a lack of competition among social media firms can lead to user views being squelched: "This inquiry will help the FTC better understand how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and intimidating Americans for speaking their minds."
Reality check: Social media platforms often enforce their speech policies in opaque, ever-changing ways that may leave users confused or suddenly without a place to post. That has impacted users of all kinds.
- Platforms' content rules may change due to the whims of public opinion or current news cycles, or if they find evidence of dangerous or illegal content associated with certain terms.
- That process can leave users feeling jerked around, especially if they have built a loyal following or business on social media.
The bottom line: Platforms are private business with the right to take down and keep up content largely as they see fit, even if those rules can frustrate and evade users' understanding.
