Treating Speech as a Bug, Not a Feature
Apair of jury verdicts last week, along with a quiet settlement, may mark a turning point for the American internet—and not one that favors free expression.
For years, digital platforms have relied on two core protections: the First Amendment and Section 230. Together, they let companies host, organize, and moderate speech without facing crushing liability. In a 48-hour span, that foundation took a hit.
A New Mexico jury delivered a $375 million verdict tied to child safety claims against Meta. A California jury found Meta and Google (YouTube) liable for allegedly addictive design features. Meanwhile, Missouri v. Biden—the case over government pressure on social media—ended in a settlement that promises restraint but sets little precedent.
Taken together, these developments push platforms toward tighter speech controls. They also showcase a rising legal strategy: recasting editorial decisions as defective-product design.
At the same time, the Missouri v. Biden settlement leaves largely intact the government’s ability to pressure platforms behind the scenes. Little now prevents government officials—or even private litigants—from pushing social media companies to significantly reduce speech without any formal legislative or regulatory action.