The Twitter Files, Section 230, and the Free Market

The release of the Twitter files—a series of exposé posts by journalists given access to Twitter’s internal documents—has breathed new life into the debate surrounding regulating Big Tech companies and their role in safeguarding freedom of speech. These files uncovered the coordination between Twitter HQ and federal intelligence agencies, leading the House Oversight and Accountability Committee to bring in top Twitter executives to testify. Coupled with recent legal challenges to Section 230—the provision that protects websites hosting third-party content from lawsuits—the foundations of the modern Internet are being reassessed.Is Big Tech really the existential threat to free speech that its critics claim it to be? How can policymakers address the challenges posed by Big Tech without limiting the immense benefits? Here is a selection of recent arguments by thought leaders sympathetic to the free market to shed light on these questions.  

• The Manhattan Institute and the Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief for the recent Changizi case arguing that when government threats affect the decisions of private entities, state action exists and constitutional scrutiny applies. 
• Sebastian Mallaby makes the case in the Washington Post that effective government remedies for seeming oligopolies are hard to design and that the best cure for perceived capitalist excess is often capitalism itself. 
• Daniel Lyons cites Adam Smith when arguing that the absence of Section 230 protections will lead to more censorship and less competition driven by frivolous litigation, keeping smaller companies from entering the market.  
• Columbia law professor Philip Hamburger evaluates the underlying constitutional law surrounding Section 230 and proposes some potential reforms for more accountability in the Wall Street Journal.  
• NYU and Chicago law professor Richard Epstein examines the implications of instituting a common carriage regime to prevent digital platforms from abusing their positions to distort public debate.  
• University of Chicago economist Luigi Zingales sat down with MI’s Allison Schrager to discuss whether the FAANG companies are monopolies and presented a nuanced approach toward oversight and regulation.  
• A recent Wall Street Journal editorial argues that solutions to the challenges of Section 230 are best answered by legislators, not judges. 
• Thomas Berry contends that limiting Section 230 would make the Internet “less open, less free, and less dynamic.” He elaborated on this view in a recent podcast. 
• Rachel Chiu argues in The Hill that in the absence of Section 230, social media giants will be more inclined to yield to government requests since inaction would unleash many civil lawsuits.