Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 31 ALITO, J., concurring in judgment No human being could possibly review even a tiny fraction of this gigantic outpouring of speech, and it is therefore hard to see how any shared message could be discerned. And even if someone could view all this data and find such a message, how likely is it that the addition of a small amount of discordant speech would change the overall message? Now consider how newspapers and social-media platforms edit content. Newspaper editors are real human beings, and when the Court decided Tornillo (the case that the majority finds most instructive), editors assigned articles to particular reporters, and copyeditors went over typescript with a blue pencil. The platforms, by contrast, play no role in selecting the billions of texts and videos that users try to convey to each other. And the vast bulk of the “curation” and “content moderation” carried out by platforms is not done by human beings. Instead, algorithms remove a small fraction of nonconforming posts post hoc and prioritize content based on factors that the platforms have not revealed and may not even know. After all, many of the biggest platforms are beginning to use AI algorithms to help them moderate content. And when AI algorithms make a decision, “even the researchers and programmers creating them don’t really understand why the models they have built make the decisions they make.”56 Are such decisions equally expressive as the decisions made by humans? Should we at least think about this? Other questions abound. Maybe we should think about the enormous power exercised by platforms like Facebook and YouTube as a result of “network effects.” Cf. Ohio v. —————— about 150,000 words. A typical word consists of 10 to 20 bytes. Therefore, the average issue of the New York Times contains around 3 million bytes. 56 T. Xu, AI Makes Decisions We Don’t Understand—That’s a Problem, (Jul. 19, 2021), https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-rightexplanation.