Public Knowledge Refutes “Censorship” Claims, Urges FTC To Protect Consumers and Competition
Public Knowledge Refutes “Censorship” Claims, Urges FTC To Protect Consumers and Competition
Public Knowledge Refutes “Censorship” Claims, Urges FTC To Protect Consumers and Competition

    Get Involved Today

    Yesterday, Public Knowledge filed comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s request for public comment on “technology platform censorship,” which the agency describes as “how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations.”

    The comments argue that no empirical evidence to date supports any claim that content moderation unfairly targets specific political viewpoints on technology platforms. The comments also explain why platforms’ content policies reflect the tensions inherent in their advertising-based business model and the need to satisfy both their users and advertisers – not censorship. Finally, the comments contend that competition, not FTC intervention in content moderation practices, best preserves free expression for all users. Public Knowledge cautions the FTC from intervening in moderation decisions – protected by the First Amendment – and urges the agency to focus on protecting consumers from the outsized power of dominant platforms.

    The following can be attributed to Morgan Wilsmann, Policy Analyst at Public Knowledge:

    “The FTC has no role to play in policing how platforms moderate content. Content moderation is not censorship; it’s a lawful exercise of editorial discretion, protected by the First Amendment and essential for free expression online. Mislabeling these decisions as ‘censorship’ distracts from the real issue: the concentrated power of a few dominant platforms that shape the rules of online discourse. 

    “If we’re serious about giving users more agency over their expression online, the answer isn’t more government control over speech – it’s structural reform. This means promoting competition, including by encouraging interoperability and decentralized social media alternatives. It also means enforcing platform commitments to their users, and holding those platforms to account when they fail to deliver their promised services.”

    You may view the comments for more information, as well as our corresponding articles, “What Does Research Tell Us About Technology Platform ‘Censorship’?” and “The Conservative Political Playbook Driving the FTC Platform Censorship Inquiry.”

    Members of the media may contact Communications Director Shiva Stella with inquiries, interview requests, or to join the Public Knowledge press list at shiva@publicknowledge.org or 405-249-9435.