This situation becomes even more difficult and complicated when federal officials start demanding that social media companies do more to suppress speech those officials view as dangerous to democracy, public health, or national security. It also becomes constitutionally problematic—a point that Nix and Ellison do not even acknowledge. Instead they complain that “an aggressive legal battle over claims that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to silence certain speech has blocked a key path to detecting election interference.”

Those are not merely “claims.” The Biden administration indisputably “pressured social media platforms,” publicly and privately, “to silence certain speech.” The legal question is whether that pressure amounted to government-directed censorship, in violation of the First Amendment. A federal judge concluded that it did.

Nix and Ellison probably disagree with that decision. But they do not even mention it, let alone explain why they think it was wrong.

[I flagged it earlier today in the Headlines with more brief argument to the same purpose. Sullum does a more complete takedown in this lengthy essay, which should be read in full. — Ed]