Online platforms have completely transformed American social life. They have democratized publication, overthrown old gatekeepers, and given ordinary Americans a fresh voice in politics. But the system is beginning to falter. Control over online speech lies in the hands of a select few -- Facebook, Google, and Twitter -- who moderate content for the entire nation. It is an impossible task. Americans cannot even agree among themselves what speech should be permitted. And, more importantly, platforms have their own interests at stake: Fringe theories and ugly name-calling drive away users. Moderation is good for business. But platform beautification has consequences for society's unpopular members, whose unsightly voices are silenced in the process. With control over online speech so centralized, online outcasts are left with few avenues for expression. Concentrated private control over important resources is an old problem. Last century, for example, saw the rise of railroads and telephone networks. To ensure access, such entities are treated as common carriers and required to provide equal service to all comers. Perhaps the same should be true for social media. This Essay responds to recent calls from Congress, the Supreme Court, and academia arguing that, like common carriers, online platforms should be required to carry all lawful content. The Essay studies users' and platforms' competing expressive interests, analyzes problematic trends in platforms' censorship practices, and explores the costs of common-carrier regulation before ultimately proposing market expansion and segmentation as an alternate pathway to avoid the economic and social costs of common-carrier regulation.

翻译：在线平台已彻底改变了美国的社会生活。它们实现了出版的民主化，推翻了传统的把关人，并为普通美国人在政治中提供了全新的发声渠道。然而，这一体系正开始动摇。对网络言论的控制权掌握在少数几个实体手中——Facebook、Google 和 Twitter——它们为整个国家管理内容。这是一项不可能完成的任务。美国人甚至无法就何种言论应被允许达成共识。更重要的是，平台自身利益攸关：边缘理论和恶毒谩骂会赶走用户。内容管理有利于商业发展。但平台的“美化”行为对不受欢迎的社会群体产生了影响，他们的不雅声音在这一过程中被压制。由于网络言论控制权高度集中，网络边缘群体几乎毫无表达渠道。私人对重要资源的集中控制是一个老问题。例如，上世纪见证了铁路和电话网络的兴起。为确保接入权，此类实体被视作公共承运人，并被要求为所有用户提供平等服务。社交媒体或许也应如此。本文回应了近期来自国会、最高法院及学界的呼声，认为在线平台应像公共承运人一样被要求承载所有合法内容。文章研究了用户与平台相互冲突的表达利益，分析了平台审查实践中的问题趋势，并探讨了公共承运人监管的成本，最终提出以市场扩张与细分作为替代路径，以避免公共承运人监管的经济与社会成本。