Social Media and Big Tech, Part Two. @elonmusk Imagine a situation where you have a technology company that has overwhelming influence on the information you see every day. This is exactly the effect that the combination of companies like Meta, X, Youtube, Google, Apple, Microsoft, TikTok, etc. currently have on the public sphere. One can argue that any citizen has the freedom to get their information by going directly to a trusted site. One could use a search engine to find information but these search engines are all owned by tech conglomerates, and have their own built-in bias. As a result few of us take the time or have the skills to go directly to the sites we’re interested in to get our information. What makes the power of tech companies much greater are the AI algorithms used to present information that will get more “clicks”. The result is that people see one-sided information that conforms to their biases. Because big tech companies have this new kind of power over the public sphere, I suggest they should be regulated differently. But how? I suggest we start with two principles for Big Tech and Social Media: 1.No News 2.No Politics. First: NO NEWS: Big tech and social media are not in the news business, such as New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Washington Post, , etc. Because of their overwhelming influence on the public sphere, they should not be presenting their version of the news in any form. This means no curating of news. If you go to the start page for Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple News, etc. you will be presented with headlines handpicked by these companies. One might notice a clear bias simply by perusing the headlines and the copy under the headline. On the other hand, Social Media companies have the right to allow who they want on their sites and to censor content of their users as long as it does not directly involve censoring News or Political figures (See Principle Two). If a private user posts a news feed or political information that is up to the user. Companies are currently shielded under the “Good Samaritan Law”, Section 230 of the Communications Act, from liability resulting from user’s posts. This should continue with one exception. Users would have the right to sue if they can show their posts were blocked purely for political reasons and hence their First Amendment rights were violated. For this to happen, the Supreme Court would have to agree that Big Tech companies are a new hybrid category when it comes to the first amendment. The idea that private companies do not have absolute first amendment rights has been affirmed in past Supreme Court reviews regarding the use of profanity on the airwaves. I suspect they may have a similar ruling in the current case before them. There is sufficient diversity and competition among Social Media companies. One can go to X, Meta, Truth Social, Youtube, etc. and use these sites for whatever floats one’s boat. So with this one exception, these companies have the right to manage their companies and the content of their sites as they see fit. Second: NO POLITICS: Because of their overriding potential influence on the public sphere and hence also the political sphere, Big Tech should not be involved in politics as follows. Big tech and social media should not censor any politician or political figure running for office. They should devise a method that posts from official politicians are not skewed by the social media platform in any way. There is precedence for this. Currently the FCC requires radio and TV broadcasters to treat all candidates running for political office equally and are not permitted to censor their content. The FCC also imposes restraints on these companies related to obscenity and indecency. As part of this principle, companies should devise methods to identify and block bots, and posts from foreign sources specially designed to influence U.S. elections. See Part Three for rest of post.