Liberty, Technology, Utility

Daniel Tenreiro’s article regarding monopolistic activity of Big Tech (“How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Big Tech,” January 25) misses the larger point of censorship of the users by each of these companies. All of his points are valid for business activities, and I think correct, but do not address the issue that these companies have the ability to use their power to stifle and censor the news they don’t like and the opinions of those with whom they disagree. This gives them more power than any business monopoly ever could. The simple solution is to force them to be like all other public utilities: namely, grant unrestricted access to and use of their platform, just as the phone, gas, and electric companies are required to do. If others use the platform for bad things, the user should be held to account, not the platform. I don’t presume to know what legal doctrine would accomplish this, but I think that is the only way to address their unfair treatment of the public.

Thomas A. Portante Pittsburgh, Pa.

Daniel Tenreiro responds: There is no doubt that the moderation policies of Big Tech firms are biased against conservatives. In a perfect world, digital platforms would avoid overzealously policing public discourse. But the proposals put forth by politicians of both parties — from breaking up tech firms to repealing Section 230 — would do nothing to remedy this problem. Indeed, the outsize power of regulators partly explains why platforms such as Facebook and Twitter clamped down on conservative speech in the first place. Democrats swept this election cycle, and their holding the reins of regulatory power posed a threat so potent that it drove tech firms to ostracize a critical mass of their users. If Republicans pushed to expand political oversight of Big Tech, they would only be playing into Democrats’ hands. Designating Big Tech firms as public utilities, as Mr. Portante advocates, might ensure equal access to their services, but those services would necessarily be worse. The reason we find censorship troubling is that Facebook and Twitter are innovative enough to attract, between them, hundreds of millions of Americans to their platforms. Public-utility status would obviate the need for innovation and make these platforms less valuable to users. Trump would be allowed on Twitter, but it would be a Twitter handicapped by regulators. Worse, public-utility status would shield Big Tech from the competition that might offer a way out of the present quagmire. Though Big Tech’s refusal to do business with Parler is troubling, the digital economy still offers an abundance of alternatives to incumbent platforms. The best way to crush competition once and for all is to turn social media into a public utility.

Correction

“Where the Disabled Have a Right to Be Born” (Madeleine Kearns, January 25) noted that the double lightning bolts on the signs of pro-abortion-rights protesters reminded older Poles of the Nazi secret police. In fact they were a symbol of the SS, a Nazi paramilitary organization.