The advent of online speech allowed ideas and content to reach incredibly large audiences at speeds unimaginable just a few years before the mass adoption of the internet. The websites and apps that hosted this plethora of online speech have become a battleground for debates over the First Amendment. Questions like, “What is allowed to be posted and shared online?” and, “Are sites that host content more like newspapers, with editorial discretion, or like phone companies that simply transmit information?”

Last Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments on these questions in Moody v. Netchoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. These two cases are expected to determine the future of government control over online speech. The cases boil down to the question of whether the government can override decisions by private companies about what content to leave up or take down on their app or website.

NetChoice v. Paxton challenges a Texas law that prohibits “social media platforms” from removing or promoting content based on what the content says. Moody v. NetChoice challenges a similar Florida law that bans social media companies from removing any account run by a candidate for office or suppressing political posts.

The laws frame removing, promoting, or demoting content, also known as moderation, as inherently bad. In reality, the internet without any moderation could result in fewer customizations that many users like. Platforms use moderation to deliver results that will be of most interest to their users. For example, YouTube uses moderation when it recommends cooking videos to a home chef over football highlights.

In a free market, the decision of what is and is not posted is best left to users and companies. Social media companies have the burden to behave ethically and honor the First Amendment. Social media users have the choice to bring their posts and profiles to other platforms. This system, though imperfect, is a superior alternative to the Texas and Florida laws in question.

In just a few months, the Supreme Court will decide whether private companies have control of what gets posted to their platforms. Should the court rule in favor of the challenged laws, increased regulation is sure to follow.