• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, February 20, 2025

The Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson on Thursday launched an investigation into what he claims are “potentially illegal” editorial decisions by social media platforms.

“Today’s announcement marks an important step forward in restoring free speech and making sure Americans no longer suffer under the tyranny of Big Tech -- PERMANENTLY,” Ferguson, an ex-clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, posted on X, formerly Twitter.

"Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal,” Ferguson tweeted.

The FTC elaborated in its official statement that platforms' decisions to “cut users off” may raise antitrust concerns.

“FTC staff is interested in understanding how consumers have been harmed -- including by potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices, or potentially unfair methods of competition -- by technology platforms that limit users’ ability to share their ideas or affiliations freely and openly,” the agency said in its request for comments from the public.

The agency is specifically asking people whether they suffered “adverse actions” on social media -- such as demonetization and “shadow banning” -- due to their speech or political affiliations.

As of 3:30 p.m. Thursday, more than two dozen people had submitted comments.

Some of the commenters aired grievances against social media platforms -- including Elon Musk's X -- but others expressed criticism of the FTC's investigation.

“Companies have free speech rights which means they get to decide what is on their servers. The idea that a private entity can 'censor' is laughable and you should be embarrassed for implying such,” one anonymous commenter wrote.

“Making content moderation illegal would open the floodgates of foreign propaganda, hate speech and Nazis, making social media unusable for everyone except the hate mongers,” another commenter said.

“Private companies are allowed to censor what is on their site,” wrote a third.

Ferguson isn't the first to complain about tech platforms' editorial policies. Since at least 2020, some conservatives have insisted that the largest social media companies' rules about acceptable content result in the disproportionate suppression of right-wing speech.

No one has proven that this is the case, but that hasn't stopped the critics. Texas and Florida both went so far as to pass laws that would have restricted tech companies' ability to decide what material to allow on their platforms.

Those laws were challenged in court and, last year, the Supreme Court said social media companies have a First Amendment right to wield control over content on their platforms.

The First Amendment “does not go on leave when social media are involved,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

“This Court has many times held, in many contexts, that it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression -- to 'un-bias' what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences,” she wrote. “That principle works for social-media platforms as it does for others.”

Lower courts also have repeatedly rejected claims by people who sued tech companies including Meta and Google for allegedly suppressing speech.

“Meta has a First Amendment right to use its platform to promote views it finds congenial and to refrain from promoting views it finds distasteful,” 9th Circuit Court Judge Eric Miller, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote last year in a battle between Meta and the Children's Health Defense -- an organization that's skeptical of vaccines, previously helmed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The ruling rejected the Children's Health Defense's attempt to reinstate a lawsuit alleging that Meta violated the First Amendment by suppressing the organization's vaccine related posts.