Today, Cambridge University Press has released an important new book by University of California law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat, titled:
Killing the Messenger: The War on Social Media
The book offers a comprehensive study of the ongoing political and legal battles surrounding social media platforms. It delves deeply into the debates over their role, portraying them as a mirror that reflects the realities of our contemporary social and political life. The author criticizes the negative and extreme narratives spread by politicians and journalists about the effects of social media, arguing that many of the issues attributed to these platforms—such as political polarization and mental health challenges among teenagers—actually have historical roots predating social media. He stresses that traditional media and politicians bear much responsibility for exaggerating these problems, largely because they lost their monopoly over information and public discourse.
The author affirms that social media has established a form of “democracy of speech,” enabling wider segments of the public to raise their voices without the censorship of political and media elites. At the same time, he acknowledges negative consequences such as disinformation, hate speech, and privacy violations. Yet, he argues that much of the debate on social media harms is overstated, often lacking credible empirical evidence.
The book also examines regulations directed at social media platforms in the United States and the European Union, including efforts to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author contends that many of these proposals not only raise serious concerns about free speech but may also produce harmful and unintended public policy consequences.
He further explores the ambiguous and complex relationship between big data privacy and freedom of expression, focusing on the legal and ethical challenges posed by digital platforms. Bhagwat emphasizes that collecting and processing user data is essential for operating modern social media, as the vast volume of content requires algorithms to recommend posts and advertisements in a personalized and efficient way—making privacy a central, unavoidable issue.
The fundamental business model of these platforms relies on targeted advertising, which depends on accurate user data about preferences and behavior. Any attempt to restrict this either reduces the quality of service and user experience or forces platforms toward subscription-based models—a system widely rejected by users when tested in Europe.
The author devotes considerable space to comparing European and American legislation—namely, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). He explains that European law grants individuals broader rights over their data, while U.S. law tends to prioritize market freedom. GDPR identifies six legal bases for data processing, including the controller’s legitimate interest, but it also opens the door for regulators to impose stricter, often unpredictable, obligations on platforms.
Bhagwat distinguishes between data privacy—the individual’s control over how their data is stored and processed—and dignity privacy—the right to avoid the disclosure of embarrassing personal information. He argues that laws such as the GDPR blur these two concepts, complicating the application of rights like the “right to be forgotten”, especially in landmark cases like Google Spain.
He also analyzes the effects of strict regulation on freedom of expression. Laws imposing constraints on data sharing or requiring deletion rights may become tools of censorship or restrictions on information flow, especially regarding public figures or matters of public concern. He warns that excessive regulation could reinforce monopolies, since only the largest platforms can bear the compliance burden—making it harder for new competitors to enter the market.
A central question he raises is: Are data considered protected speech under the First Amendment? The U.S. Supreme Court has hinted that data may indeed qualify as “speech,” meaning any data regulation must respect free expression. Accordingly, the European-style “right to be forgotten” would likely be unconstitutional in the United States.
The book dedicates a section to special protections for children, noting stricter European and U.S. measures such as banning targeted ads for minors in Europe and imposing age verification requirements. However, such laws face constitutional hurdles in the U.S. under the First Amendment.
Bhagwat points out that compliance with data-protection rules is extremely costly, burdening smaller companies and effectively favoring big tech monopolies. Field studies reveal that very few users actively exercise their rights to access or delete data, raising doubts about the real-world effectiveness of such rights.
The author calls for cautious, flexible, and continuously reviewable legislation, warning against overregulation in the fast-evolving digital field. Regulation must be realistic and strike a balance between privacy protection, democratic vitality, and freedom of expression.
He presents practical policy visions for defining the limits of law and society’s relationship with digital technologies, stressing the need for balanced, workable approaches to regulating social media without sacrificing democracy and free speech. He argues that most political proposals in the U.S. and Europe are either exaggerated or based on flawed understandings of social media’s impact. Effective regulation, he insists, should target only clearly proven harms, not assumptions or moral panic.
Among his main recommendations:
- No Harm First Policy: Regulatory intervention should address only demonstrable harms, such as child exploitation or organized criminal campaigns. Alleged but unproven harms like mental health impacts or political polarization should not trigger strict legal intervention.
- Protect Free Speech: Resist efforts to overregulate digital speech, which could suppress public debate or be weaponized politically against dissent. He rejects turning platforms into “public utilities” bound by government-imposed neutrality, as this would undermine the diversity brought by digital transformation.
- Encourage Self-Regulation and Transparency: Platforms should adopt robust self-regulatory tools such as transparent editorial policies, complaint mechanisms, public explanation of standards, and continuous system updates. Competitive space—not monopoly—should be preserved so these solutions can evolve naturally.
- Set Limits to Regulation: He criticizes proposals that relieve governments from proving actual harm before imposing regulations, warning that excessive rules will only strengthen dominant players and stifle competition and innovation. Many current proposals, he argues, recycle past mistakes of earlier technological revolutions and reflect “moral panic” rather than sound analysis.
Looking Ahead
The author closes with a call to embrace uncertainty and adapt to the digital revolution with legal flexibility and openness to experimentation, rejecting deterministic views of social media’s impact or nostalgic attempts to restore the “golden age” of traditional media through regulation.
Ultimately, Bhagwat insists that any practical regulation of social media must be quickly adaptable, with a constant focus on protecting free expression and competition. Policymakers should avoid chasing illusions or collective fears, and instead rely on evidence, flexibility, and space for self-regulation and experimentation.
