Large technology companies (Big Tech) and corporate media have long faced criticism from all sides of the ideological spectrum for its growing power to limit speech. However, it is important to note that limits on free speech is not by nature a bad thing. Society has always had limitations on what it deems acceptable to say. According to the Hebrew bible, cursing ‘God and the King’ was punishable by stoning. Thankfully, the UK finally abolished blasphemy laws in England and Wales in 2008 (although NI still has blasphemy laws on the books). As society’s values change over time, it is a cornerstone of the democratic function that the limits on speech should change as well.
Another example of limitation on free expression can be seen in hate speech, which has its roots in English jurisprudence and philosophy since John Stuart Mill, who proposed the ‘harm principle’ - the idea that free speech that incites or causes harm is not really ‘free’ at all. All this is to say that constraints on free speech, when consistent with the law, fundamental rights, is an essential part of the democratic process.
However, the role of free speech in society has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. The consolidation of media outlets by large technology companies has reframed the fundamental right of free expression as it relates to ‘Western’ democracy.
The 1970s, during the Vietnam War era in the US and the rise of hard-line conservatism in the UK under Thatcher (during the height of the Troubles), brought an increased level of censorship to both democracies. Suppression of dissent in both countries in the name of patriotism and national security was a pervasive issue, with violations of civil liberties and due process commonplace. In the U.S. during the Nixon era, it was common for the President to influence the media by providing false information to journalists, withholding information and placing wiretaps on journalists. However, even though the free press and free speech was threatened in the 70s, the world of free expression and the freedom of the press is different in 2025. Free speech has perhaps never been so under threat as it is so today, and this is because of the influence corporations have on free expression and the outsized control Big Tech and other conglomerates play. Over the last few decades, these corporations have slowly erased the competition, providing less of a check on their power.
In the 1970s in the US, already a small number of media companies controlled a significant proportion of the media. By 1983, around 50 corporations controlled the majority of news media in the US. By 1992, this figure had risen to 22 companies who owned and operated the majority of the news media. And in 2022, it was estimated that media ownership is concentrated by only six companies: AT&T, CBS, Comcast, Disney, Newscorp and Viacom.
In the United Kingdom, corporate dominance over the news market is even more pronounced. Three major corporations - DMG Media (publisher of the Daily Mail, Metro, and i,), News UK (owner of The Sun and The Times), and Reach (publisher of the Daily Mirror, Daily Express, and Daily Star) - collectively control around 90% of national newspaper circulation.
However, the defining difference of ownership, publication and control of the news sphere between previous generations and today is the staggering power of a handful of large corporations, particularly tech companies. In fact, a report from the Media Reform Coalition from 2023 highlights the power a handful of tech companies hold in the new media environment. Ten of the most popular fifteen platforms used to access news and current affairs in the UK are owned by the tech companies Meta, Alphabet and X Corp (X/Twitter).
As the ideological shift in power from liberal, centrist hegemony of the 1990s-2000s towards a more reactionary, deregulated right-wing conservatism, in the EU, UK and most notably, the US, the corporate influence and dominance over freedom of expression on social media has steadily increased. However, it is perhaps only following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 US Presidential election that the power of Big Tech finally stepped into the forefront of politics.
A visual analysis of Trump’s January inauguration serves as a compelling illustration to the ascent to oligarchical power Big Tech and the billionaire’s behind these platforms: Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Meta) Elon Musk (owner of X and world's richest man) Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google) Jeff Bezos (owner of the Washington Post and former Amazon CEO) were all front row, ahead of several members of Trump’s cabinet. It is clear that in the US, at least, the balance of power has shifted towards the corporate world. This is worrisome for the rule of law and defense of political freedoms such as freedom of speech, as already there have been policies undertaken that arguably undermines protections.
For example, In January 2025, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, got rid of their third-party independent fact-checkers, after conservative voices in the US, labelling the policy of fact-checkers as ‘censorship’ of conservative voices and ‘biased’. This move was widely seen as an attempt to curry favour with the Trump administration. This is because hard-line Republicans in the US have long levelled accusations of censorship towards Big Tech giants and corporations, with groups like the Heritage Foundation alleging that there is ‘censorship’ of conservative voices online.
With the ascent of Trump and other hard-right ideologues, what is much more likely is the weaponisation of Big Tech’s power through social and traditional media to undermine free speech they do not like. This does not just extend to the US, but to the wider world too.
In fact, in the past few years, Big Tech has also been increasingly interfering in European internal politics - notable as the big players in European politics and EU are largely traditionally centrist, anti-populist and anti-Trump. Elon Musk, billionaire owner of X and perhaps the most powerful civilian man in the world has flagrantly and aggressively been promoting the AfD in Germany, and Mark Zuckerberg has been outspoken in his push for Trump to protect Meta from European 'censorship’. As the Big Tech world becomes increasingly enmeshed in with Trump and his administration, it is perhaps not outlandish to suggest that free speech is under real threat. Media experts have warned that Trump is wagering a “disturbing” attack on the freedom of the press and speech that is tantamount to a “true free-speech emergency”.
Attempts to silence or censor critics of the Trump administration are already under way. In February, the Federal Communications Commision (FCC), launched ‘investigations’ into the ‘DEI’ policies of several media organisations, such as NBC, PBS and NPR; all media organisations which have been criticised by the President for its vigorous coverage.
Matthew Gertz, a fellow at Media Matters (a media watchdog organisation), likened Trump’s tactics to Vicktor Orban’s authoritarian policies in Hungary. If large media organisations, such as Comcast (which owns NBC) can be potentially intimidated to censor their coverage, what does that mean for the individual right to free speech of citizens in the US? In fact, this can be extended towards the UK, Europe and the wider world, such as when Elon Musk singled out Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips and stated that she should be jailed. Phillips’ only sin was to challenge Musk’s statements relating to the grooming scandal in the UK.
Although Musk is perhaps the most egregious example of Big Tech and the power it has to censor and intimidate, when coupled with the fact that Amazon, Google, and Meta have all made attempts to ingratiate themselves with Trump’s administration, it is right to question their ever-increasing power. If Trump continues his attack on freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it is perhaps likely that these tech giants will follow his wishes if he orders them to crush any dissent.
Vox quoted Jillian York, author of Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism, who stated that Meta, in particular, has had a long history of censorship. Social media companies such as Meta have not been used as a bastion of political freedom and social justice as many people have hoped.
Meta’s censorship history, combined with previous political scandals, contribution to genocide in Myanmar, and allowance for Facebook to be used as a host for state-backed political manipulation, suggests that if there is a slide towards authoritarian practices in the US and Europe, they will fall into line.
In a world where a handful of tech giants wield unprecedented control over the flow of information, the stakes for democracy and free speech have never been higher. Allowing these companies and the billionaire’s that run them to operate without meaningful limitations is not just a failure of oversight—it’s a surrender of our collective voice. If we value a society where diverse perspectives can thrive, where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few unelected executives, then it’s time to rein in their influence. The only way to do this is by challenging the power of these companies through the courts and through public policy. The UK has taken a significant step towards protecting consumers and the public through the Online Safety Act 2023, but perhaps significant more protections are needed. The future of free expression depends on it.
Comments