Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Though digital instead of physical, they are at bottom com-
munications  networks,  and  they  “carry”  information  from 
one user to another.  A traditional telephone company laid 
physical wires to create a network connecting people.  Dig-
ital  platforms  lay  information  infrastructure  that  can  be 
controlled in much the same way.  And unlike newspapers,
digital platforms hold themselves out as organizations that 
focus on distributing the speech of the broader public.  Fed-
eral law dictates that companies cannot “be treated as the 
publisher or speaker” of information that they merely dis-
tribute.  110 Stat. 137, 47 U. S. C. §230(c). 

The analogy to common carriers is even clearer for digital
platforms  that  have  dominant  market  share.    Similar  to 
utilities, today’s dominant digital platforms derive much of 
their value from network size.  The Internet, of course, is a 
network.  But these digital platforms are networks within
that  network.    The  Facebook  suite  of  apps  is  valuable 
largely because 3 billion people use it.  Google search—at
90%  of  the  market  share—is  valuable  relative  to  other 
search  engines  because  more  people  use  it,  creating  data
that Google’s algorithm uses to refine and improve search
results.  These network effects entrench these companies.
Ordinarily,  the  astronomical  profit  margins  of  these  plat-
forms—last  year,  Google  brought  in  $182.5  billion  total,
$40.3  billion  in  net  income—would  induce  new  entrants 
into the market.  That these companies have no comparable 
competitors  highlights  that  the  industries  may  have  sub-
stantial barriers to entry.

To be sure, much activity on the Internet derives value
from network effects.  But dominant digital platforms are
different.  Unlike decentralized digital spheres, such as the 
e-mail protocol, control of these networks is highly concen-
trated.  Although  both  companies  are  public,  one  person
controls Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg), and just two control 
Google  (Larry  Page  and  Sergey  Brin).  No  small  group  of 
people controls e-mail.