Big Tech Project publication

Crucially, the Act makes important distinctions between journalists and citizens, thus trying to obviate certain constitutional difficulties.

The content moderation decisions of the dominant Big Tech conglomerates appear to many reasonable observers to be censorship of conservative speech. To remedy this problem, many have recently been looking to the common law doctrine of common carriage—particularly since Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent concurring opinion that highlighted this possible approach.

The chorus of voices on the Hill willing to hold the Silicon Valley giants accountable is only growing. The good news is that the new approach is working.

How should conservatives think about the intersection of property rights, government regulation, and Big Tech? Part of answering this question requires us to gain a better understanding of the American legal tradition’s sources, recovering them from recent distortions. Justice Clarence Thomas recently sought to educate us on just this.

A concurrence by Justice Thomas leaves us with a tantalizing question: does the First Amendment already apply to Big Tech companies because they now have more power to suppress public speech than government?

Last Thursday’s hearing was a good first step, but Congress must keep up the pressure on Silicon Valley and do the hard follow-up work of passing bipartisan legislation to hold it accountable.

A review of Sam Harris’s “The Moral Landscape”