We both want social media to be safe and accessible to everyone. I don't think anyone disagrees with that goal. But calling it a public utility is the wrong fix, because it changes what these platforms actually are. A utility like water or electricity is a natural monopoly with physical infrastructure, and we regulate it because you can't have five competing water systems. Social media isn't like that. People can switch platforms, new apps pop up constantly, and there's real competition. Regulating them as utilities would mean treating them as common carriers, forced to carry everything neutrally. But these companies curate content, moderate, and set community standards. That's not infrastructure, that's editorial judgment. And if you force them to act like a utility, you essentially mandate that they host speech they find harmful or dangerous. That's a serious free speech problem. The utility model doesn't fit, and trying to force it would do more harm than good.

Henry, I think you might have wandered off topic with the LeBron and Jordan thing, but I'll use it as a reminder that we're debating social media, not basketball. So let me sharpen my point. Here's the thing about calling something a public utility: that term has a specific legal meaning. It applies to natural monopolies. You can't have three competing water pipe systems running under the same street, so government grants an exclusive franchise in exchange for regulation. That's the deal. Fair rates, universal service, common carriage. Social media doesn't look like that at all. People switch platforms freely, new apps launch every year, and there's real competition for attention. No one is locked into a single provider the way they're locked into their local water company. So the core justification for utility regulation just isn't there. And even if it were, the common carrier model would be disastrous here. Utilities are forced to carry everything neutrally. But social media companies are editorial platforms. They set community standards, remove harmful content, make judgment calls. Force them to act like common carriers and you're mandating they host speech they find dangerous. That's not progress. That's a free speech nightmare. The model doesn't fit, and the costs would be real.

[No submission - Time expired]