Big Tech companies like Meta are playing a dangerous game of double standards when it comes to free speech. They claim to be neutral platforms while actively promoting or censoring content, all the while hiding behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for protection from litigation and oversight. However, when state laws threaten their interests, they suddenly transform into publishers, seeking First Amendment protections instead. This chameleon-like behavior allows them to avoid accountability and undermines efforts to regulate harmful content or protect user rights. The Supreme Court case NetChoice v. Paxton highlights this hypocrisy, as tech companies argue that Texas' social media law infringes on their free speech rights by compelling them to host content they want to censor. This doublespeak not only shields them from liability but also gives them unprecedented power to control narratives and influence public opinion without consequence. To rein in this abuse, Congress should consider tying Section 230 immunity to non-discrimination rules or treating tech companies as public accommodations, ensuring they can't curate content based on discriminatory factors with impunity.

Big Tech's Double Standards on Free Speech

Actions