Who owns our conversations?
Social media platforms are often described as the “modern public square,” especially after the Supreme Court’s decision in Packingham v. North Carolina. The Court basically recognized that platforms like Instagram and Facebook are now some of the main places where people express opinions and engage in public discussion. But recent changes such as Meta getting rid of fact-checkers and making unexpected algorithm updates, make it clear that these “public squares” aren’t actually public at all. They’re controlled by private companies.
There are definitely benefits to having centralized platforms. They make it incredibly easy to connect with people, share ideas, and spread information quickly. Movements, trends, and conversations can reach huge audiences almost instantly. The Free Speech Project talks about how these platforms allow more people to participate in public discourse, which is something that didn’t exist at this scale before.
At the same time, the downsides are hard to ignore. A small number of companies control what people see, what gets taken down, and how content spreads. That means they have a lot of influence over public conversation. For example, removing fact-checkers could make misinformation spread more easily, and algorithm changes can shape what users are exposed to without them even realizing it. It’s not like users get a say in these decisions either.
Because of that, relying on these companies to “do the right thing” doesn’t really make sense. Their main goal is profit, not necessarily fairness or accuracy. As discussed in Monahan (2025), this kind of control gives a lot of power to a small group of people. The Free Speech Project also shows examples of people losing access to their accounts or having content removed. This proves that users don’t actually own what they post, the platforms do.
That’s why some people are starting to look at decentralized platforms as an alternative. These platforms spread control out instead of putting it in the hands of one company. They’re not perfect and aren’t as popular yet, but they could give users more ownership over their content and communities.
Another option is government involvement, but that gets complicated because of free speech concerns. One idea that seems more reasonable is “portability,” where users could move their data and followers between platforms. That would make it easier to leave a platform without losing everything. According to ABC News, courts are still trying to figure out how to handle these issues without violating the First Amendment.
At the end of the day, it’s pretty clear that users don’t fully own what they say online. Even though we create the content, platforms control how it’s shared and whether it stays up. That doesn’t really match the idea of a true public space.
Personally, this has made me a lot more aware of how I use social media. I still use apps like Instagram and TikTok all the time, but I don’t really trust them the same way especially for news. I’ve been trying to get information from multiple places instead of just relying on whatever shows up on my feed.
Overall, I think society needs to push for more transparency and maybe some level of regulation, but also better alternatives. At the same time, people (including me) need to be more aware of how much control these platforms actually have. If this is our “public square,” it shouldn’t be this easy for a few companies to control the conversation.
Until next time..
Hailey's Blog 