Free Press Calls on Trump's FTC to Abide by the First Amendment and Reject Claims of Social-Media Bias
WASHINGTON — On Wednesday, Free Press urged the Federal Trade Commission to abide by the U.S. Constitution and statutory constraints when analyzing the ways prominent technology companies moderate content that users post on popular online platforms.
The request came in response to an FTC public inquiry on whether and how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on those users’ speech or affiliations. “Tech platforms have a First Amendment right to create and enforce their own content moderation policies, and government interference with those decisions creates a slippery slope to improper coercion and censorship,” writes Free Press in comments authored by Advocacy Director Jenna Ruddock and Vice President of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood.
Free Press also decried the absence — from this proceeding and in general — of congressionally confirmed Democratic FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter. In March, President Donald Trump illegally fired the two without cause, defying long-standing Supreme Court precedent protecting federal agencies’ existence and independence from political capture and White House control. “Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter have both championed consumers’ rights and challenged the abuses of powerful technology companies, and both have deep expertise on these issues,” reads the Free Press comment. “To act under the guise of looking out for consumers, while hamstringing the Commission’s expertise to do so, underscores the emptiness of this gesture.”
Free Press Advocacy Director Jenna Ruddock, who co-authored the FTC comment, said:
“The FTC is asking how tech platforms degrade their users’ experiences, but it’s completely wrong to suggest that private companies can or do censor anyone. If the FTC truly wanted to combat censorship, it would reject the Trump administration’s attempts to contort the First Amendment to protect only speech the administration likes. Social-media platforms repeatedly prioritize growth and profits over protecting from harm both their users and the workers tasked with moderating relentless streams of online content. But while policymakers may work to determine remedies and regulations applicable to these situations, they cannot and should not attempt to dictate the content-moderation choices these companies make.
“Content moderation has always been essential to fostering healthy online communities. Yet platform efforts to moderate content have been inconsistent and imperfect at best. Many users are discouraged from speaking and participating online due to the targeted harassment, hate speech and threats of violence that content-moderation systems routinely fail to flag and remove in line with these companies’ own community standards and terms of service.
“Now companies like Meta and X are rolling back existing protections, especially those designed to safeguard protected groups facing harassment and bigotry. Elon Musk aggressively uses X to silence researchers, journalists and anyone else who criticizes his companies and ideology — or who simply rubs him the wrong way.
“Free Press has consistently pressured these companies to better protect their users, with the understanding that platforms have the First Amendment right to create, modify and enforce their own community standards. These constitutional protections are what allow for content moderation in the first place. Too often, platforms’ decisions to downgrade and discriminate against certain speakers are based on the whims of their billionaire owners. But any government effort to correct these profound failures must clear an incredibly high bar established by First Amendment precedent — and policymakers should not censor or dictate the choices platforms make. Conservative politicians’ insistence that platforms must be sanctioned for their supposed bias are laughable and legally dubious.
“Free Press continues to push tech platforms to adopt content-moderation policies and practices that are more robust, transparent and responsive to the interests and needs of users and content-moderation workers. Yet we also recognize that government intervention in these decisions is unwise and unlawful. Any action the FTC undertakes here could easily travel down a slippery slope to censorship, and that seems to be the point. The agency should know its legal limits. We hope this proceeding will help draw a clear red line against unconstitutional FTC action.”
Background: For years, Free Press has engaged in advocacy regarding tech platforms’ content-moderation policies and enforcement actions. It has produced original research tracking companies’ policy commitments and subsequent rollbacks, their varying investment and disinvestment in content-moderation infrastructure, and other related issues. Free Press has also encouraged companies to bolster their content-moderation policies around hate speech, incitement to violence and harassment to facilitate better access to online spaces for all.