Google’s mission statement is undoubtedly altruistic. The Internet overflows with information, and users could not navigate the Internet if an entity did not logically organize that information. On the other hand, should democratic societies accept the convenience that Google and the other Big Tech firms provide if that convenience impairs the marketplace of ideas? Big Tech censorship is at the forefront of current news and congressional consideration. At both ends of the political spectrum, parties agree
Big Tech censorship harms the marketplace of ideas. Republican congresspersons argue Big Tech supports liberal ideas and censors conservative voices, websites, and advertisements. Democratic congresspersons argue the contrapositive. Both parties express dissatisfaction with fake news and disinformation campaigns. Likewise, both parties recognize the detrimental impact mass extinction of alternative media sources has had on the marketplace of ideas.
Kaleb Byars, An “Essential” Solution: Reworking the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Address Big Tech’s Harm to the Marketplace of Ideas, 91 Miss. L.J. 263 (2023).