Opinion | The Supreme Court and social media content restrictions

Regarding the Feb. 27 front-page article “Justices wary of state rules regulating social media”:

In the social media/free speech case now before the Supreme Court, social media is described as being like a publisher or “the modern public square.” Both analogies are misleading.

The most productive way to think of social media platforms is that they are the 21st-century versions of private clubs. For young people, most of their socializing happens there. Relevant to the court case, private club owners can set any rules they like about who is let in and who is thrown out. In a private club, there is no right to free speech.

For this reason, the court should strike down laws that block social media platforms’ ability to regulate content on their services.

Stephen Dennett, Washington

The writer is a former product manager for AOL and Prodigy.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of the impending ruling on social media, regardless of whether the Supreme Court permits states to stop social media platforms from taking down objectionable posts.

According to the latest Harris Poll findings, social media is the primary source of information today for 1 in 5 adults — and almost half of Gen Zers. Only local news media (23 percent) and national news media (34 percent) are turned to more often by the public. And yet, social media is distrusted by more than half of all Americans, while at least two-thirds judge news outlets to be believable.

The credibility gap could stem from the way each sector operates. Though platforms get accused of censorship when they remove content, virtually anyone can share virtually anything on Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, etc. News sites, on the other hand, make it a practice to vet their content before hitting publish, even letters to the editor.

Will Johnson, Chicago

The writer is chief executive of the Harris Poll.