18 MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC ALITO, J., concurring in judgment as content “curation.” But whatever you call it, not all compilers do this, at least in a way that is inherently expressive. Some may serve as “passive receptacle[s]” of third-party speech or as “dumb pipes”16 that merely emit what they are fed. Such entities communicate no message of their own, and accordingly, their conduct does not merit First AmendMiami Herald Publishing Co. v. ment protection.17 Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 258 (1974). Determining whether an entity should be viewed as a “curator” or a “dumb pipe” may not always be easy because different aspects of an entity’s operations may take different approaches with respect to hosting third-party speech. The typical newspaper regulates the content and presentation of articles authored by its employees or others, PG&E, 475 U. S., at 8, but that same paper might also run nearly all the classified advertisements it receives, regardless of their content and without adding any expression of its own. Compare Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, with Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376 (1973). These differences may be significant for First Amendment purposes. The same may be true for a parade organizer. For example, the practice of a parade organizer may be to select the —————— 16 American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U. S. 431, 458 (2014) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 17 The majority states that it is irrelevant whether “a compiler includes most items and excludes just a few.” Ante, at 18. That may be true if the compiler carefully reviews, edits, and selects a large proportion of the items it receives. But if an entity, like some “sort of community billboard, regularly carr[ies] the messages of third parties” instead of selecting only those that contribute to a common theme, then this information becomes highly relevant. PG&E, 475 U. S. 1, 23 (1986) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment). Entities that have assumed the role of common carriers fall into this category, for example. And the States defend portions of their laws on the ground that at least some social-media platforms have taken on that role. The majority brushes aside that argument without adequate consideration.