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."

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.

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.

The FTC's solicitation of public comments about online speech moderation, along with related moves by the FCC, are part of a plan to "sabotage" tech platforms' content moderation efforts, per a new report shared first with Axios by the Chamber of Progress.

Why it matters: The left-leaning tech advocacy group says the agencies are going beyond their authority with the goals they're trying to achieve.

• "Despite bad-faith complaints about 'censorship,' the FCC and FTC are overstepping their authority in order to force platforms to carry pernicious speech and turn online communities into anything-goes cesspools," the report's author, Hope Ledford, writes.

What's inside: The report digs into efforts to repeal or weaken Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by President Trump and other Republicans, which tech platforms rely on to be able to host and moderate content without massive liability.

• Those efforts are without legal merit, the report argues, and are part of what it calls the MAGA agenda to squelch independent media and criticism of the Trump administration online.

Ledford writes that the FTC move "reveals the Trump administration's intent to scrutinize or challenge content moderation, disguised as protecting consumers or promoting competition."

• Consumer protection law and the FTC's ability to police speech that is false or misleading to consumers does not override the First Amendment, she writes.
• Without platforms freely being able to moderate content as they see fit, the web will become a "free-for-all junkyard of harmful content," Ledford writes.

🔬White House Office of Science and Technology Policy director Michael Kratsios called for a return to "Gold Standard Science" in a speech at the National Academy of Sciences Monday — defining it as "a suspicion of blind consensus and a celebration of informed dissent."

• He also said the Trump administration will "reduce administrative burdens on federally funded researchers, not bog them down in bureaucratic box checking."

🧬 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is buying the assets of 23andMe, the bankrupt genetic testing company, for $256 million, Axios' Dan Primack reports.

🤖 Apple's AI initiatives aren't going great, per Bloomberg.

👀 AI can be a better debater than humans, the Washington Post reports from a new study published Monday.