The case before the Supreme Court is complicated. Some detail is given in this USA Today article.

The obvious thing that strikes me is that despite the laws being promulgated by conservative states, where they feel conservative opinions are being censored, it’s really not a liberal vs conservative issue. You can see that in arguments that have been written up, where people on both sides of the aisle have written views on both sides.

Conservatives feel censored. But if the Supreme Court rules that social media is like a telephone service then progressives can’t be censored on Truth Social or other conservative media either, right? And LGBTQ posts in Florida social media can’t be censored. It works both ways.

It does seem that social media is very different from a phone utility though. Phones are more one-to-one while social media is one-to-many. Also, while some media giants, like Meta, seem to have a monopoly it is possible for anybody to set up their own social network. I have one! It’s hard to get anybody to participate, but it’s there: lifemind.com. Feel free to join!

Also, as I wrote somewhere else today, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. Don’t social medial groups have a right to protect against utter lies, defamation, and misinformation? Think of China and Russia promulgating disinformation in an election year.

And consider cases like an LGBTQ social network. Don’t they have a right to disallow hate posts from religious fanatics if they so choose?

I’m for freedom of speech. But people with people outlets are also free to run in a civilized manner if they want.