In-Kind Censoring

All my instincts
They return
And the grand façade
So soon will burn
--Peter Gabriel

A conceptual framework that guides yesterday's post is resource dependence theory. When organizations depend on outside entities for important resources, they are prone to create 'negotiated environments' with those entities to facilitate resource acquisition. 

The more dependent an organization is on an outside entity for resources, the more beholden that organization is to the entity. In markets for economic goods, this asymmetric influence is sometimes called bargaining power. Walmart, for example, wields sizeable bargaining power in negotiations with suppliers due to the resources that can be obtained via the Walmart channel.

In markets for political favor, the resources that organizations desire rest in control of government. Government contracts, tax breaks, monopolistic grants, favorable regulatory treatment, etc. In negotiations to obtain those resources, organizations might offer several politically valuable items in trade, including campaign contributions, out-of-office 'grants' (e.g, cushy jobs for the relatives of politicians or even for the politicians themselves once they leave office), and access to large voter blocs.

Organizations might also offer 'in-kind' political resources in trade. In-kind resources include housing, transportation, labor, and equipment that politicians can use to their advantage. An attractive feature of in-kind contributions is that they are difficult to account for and often fly under the radar of political contribution limit watchdogs.

Media companies offer particularly attractive in-kind resources for politicians. They can publish political endorsements, provide editorial space for politicians and their cronies, and slant content in favor of candidates/parties that offer prospects of resource gains. They can also slant content away from political opponents.

This is where Trump's lawsuit of social media companies comes in. Social media companies have been pushing content that favors leftist agendas, while censoring content that opposes those agendas. In fact, the federal government recently signaled that it wants to work closer with social media outlets to advance its 'messaging' further.

Must the Trump side prove that Twitter et al and the government have explicitly negotiated a trade that involves in-kind media gifts for political favor? 

In a just legal system, no.

What Trump should need to show is that these media companies are, or have been, subject to favorable government treatment. If they can do so, then these companies should be deemed extensions of government and thus subject to the same rules that limit the power of any government agency--including limitations on restricting speech.

Whether our legal system is in fact just is, of course, questionable.