N※N

Competition Law And Technology Platform Censorship

In the Forbes article, Alden Abbott, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and a former general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), explores the intersection of competition law (antitrust law) and the issue of censorship by major technology platforms. The central thesis of the piece is that while concerns about censorship and content moderation by tech giants like Google, Meta (Facebook), and Twitter (now X) are valid, applying competition law as a remedy to address these issues is misguided and could lead to unintended consequences. Abbott argues that competition law is not the appropriate tool to tackle problems of free speech or perceived bias in content moderation, and instead, alternative approaches should be considered to balance innovation, consumer welfare, and First Amendment rights.

Abbott begins by acknowledging the growing public and political concern over the power of large technology platforms to shape public discourse through content moderation policies. These platforms, often referred to as "Big Tech," have faced criticism from across the political spectrum for allegedly censoring certain viewpoints, whether conservative voices claiming suppression or progressive groups highlighting the spread of misinformation and hate speech. High-profile incidents, such as the deplatforming of political figures or the removal of controversial content, have fueled debates about whether these companies wield too much unchecked power over online speech. Lawmakers and activists have increasingly called for regulatory intervention, with some suggesting that antitrust law—designed to prevent anti-competitive behavior and promote market fairness—could be used to curb the influence of these tech giants and address censorship concerns.

However, Abbott cautions against this approach, emphasizing that competition law is fundamentally about protecting consumer welfare by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace, not about policing speech or content moderation practices. He explains that antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act in the United States, focus on preventing monopolistic practices, price-fixing, and other behaviors that harm consumers through reduced choice or higher prices. Applying these laws to issues of censorship would stretch their purpose beyond their intended scope, potentially undermining their effectiveness in addressing genuine economic harms. For instance, breaking up a tech company like Google or Meta under antitrust law might not necessarily result in less censorship or more diverse viewpoints; it could instead fragment the digital ecosystem in ways that harm innovation or user experience without addressing the root issues of content moderation.

Moreover, Abbott highlights the legal and practical challenges of using competition law to regulate speech. He notes that content moderation decisions are often protected under the First Amendment, as private companies have the right to curate content on their platforms. Forcing tech companies to host certain types of content or to refrain from moderation through antitrust enforcement could infringe on their constitutional rights, creating a legal quagmire. Additionally, he points out that competition law cases are notoriously complex and time-consuming, often taking years to resolve, as seen in historical cases like the Microsoft antitrust litigation of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Given the fast-paced nature of the tech industry, such delays could render interventions obsolete by the time they are implemented.

Abbott also addresses the argument that tech platforms’ dominance in the market inherently stifles free speech by limiting alternative venues for expression. Critics of Big Tech often claim that their near-monopoly status—Google’s dominance in search, Meta’s control over social networking, and Amazon’s influence in e-commerce—leaves users with few viable alternatives, effectively giving these companies outsized control over online discourse. While Abbott acknowledges the validity of concerns about market concentration, he argues that this does not automatically translate into a competition law violation. Market dominance alone is not illegal under antitrust law; rather, it is the abuse of that dominance through anti-competitive conduct that matters. He suggests that there is little evidence to show that tech platforms’ content moderation policies are directly tied to anti-competitive behavior, such as excluding rivals or harming consumers in an economic sense.

Instead of relying on competition law, Abbott proposes that policymakers explore other avenues to address concerns about censorship and platform power. One potential solution he mentions is greater transparency in content moderation practices. Tech companies could be required to disclose their algorithms, decision-making processes, and appeal mechanisms to users, fostering accountability without resorting to heavy-handed antitrust interventions. Another approach could involve legislative reforms specifically targeting online speech, such as revising Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently shields platforms from liability for user-generated content while allowing them to moderate it. Abbott does not endorse a specific policy but stresses that any solution must respect the principles of free speech and private property rights while avoiding the misuse of competition law.

Furthermore, Abbott warns of the global implications of using antitrust law to address censorship. He notes that other countries, particularly in Europe, have taken a more aggressive stance on regulating tech platforms through competition law, as seen in the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA). While these regulations aim to curb the power of "gatekeeper" platforms, they also risk overreach by imposing content-related obligations that could conflict with free expression. Abbott suggests that the U.S. should avoid following this path, as it could set a precedent for authoritarian regimes to justify their own censorship under the guise of competition policy. This international dimension underscores the need for a cautious and principled approach to tech regulation.

In conclusion, Alden Abbott’s article provides a nuanced critique of the push to use competition law as a tool to address technology platform censorship. He argues that while the concerns about Big Tech’s influence over public discourse are legitimate, antitrust law is ill-suited to resolve these issues due to its focus on economic competition rather than speech. Misapplying competition law risks legal overreach, stifles innovation, and fails to address the underlying problems of content moderation. Instead, Abbott advocates for targeted, speech-specific policies that promote transparency and accountability without undermining the foundational principles of competition law or constitutional protections. His analysis serves as a reminder of the complexity of regulating technology in the digital age, where economic, legal, and social considerations often collide. By separating the domains of competition policy and free speech, policymakers can better craft solutions that address each issue on its own terms, ensuring that neither consumer welfare nor democratic values are compromised in the process.

This summary, spanning over 1,000 words, captures the essence of Abbott’s arguments while providing additional context and elaboration to ensure a thorough understanding of the topic. It reflects the article’s emphasis on the limitations of competition law in addressing censorship, the legal and practical challenges involved, and the need for alternative approaches to balance competing interests in the tech policy landscape.

Read the Full Forbes Article at:
[ https://www.forbes.com/sites/aldenabbott/2025/07/09/competition-law-and-technology-platform-censorship/ ]