In the age of abundant information, where consumers can shop for information that confirms their biases, how is speech regulated, if at all? In the United States, we have the 1st Amendment, which states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Essentially, the Constitution prohibits the government from making certain forms of speech illegal. If Congress were to pass a law that makes it illegal for me to criticise the government, that law would be struck down by the courts because it is unconstitutional. In essence, speech is protected by our founding document, making it very difficult to regulate in the U.S. There are consequences that come from this level of freedom. Namely, in a world of misinformation and disinformation, people with large platforms can spread information that can have harmful effects. If a company is marketing a health product to a large audience, but it neglects to mention some of the negative side effects, that could create harm. If the audience buys these products without being informed of the harms it could pose, then effectively the advertisers have contributed to their harm via speech. Purposeful uses of information to mislead audiences can have a variety of impacts. If I sell you a car that is cheap and seemingly works well, but I neglect to mention that the brakes are faulty and need repair, that is a form of deception by omission. But that sleight of hand is enough to put a customer in danger of a car crash, should they not address the faulty brakes on time. But this is why, even with the near absolute nature of the 1st Amendment, there are some limitations. In the landmark 1985 case of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that “commercial speech, such as attorney advertising, is protected under the First Amendment, provided it is not false or misleading. Restrictions are permissible only if they serve a substantial governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to advance that interest”. This means that an advertiser’s speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, unless the speech is false or misleading, and that laws to restrict this form of speech serve a narrowly defined “government interest”. To go back to the car salesman example, if a state or federal law established regulations that required him or her to disclose information about faulty brakes and other safety issues with a car they are selling, that law would not be struck down by the courts. Put simply, a seller is not protected under the 1st Amendment in this narrow example, when providing false information, especially where the restriction on speech is narrow and is connected to “government interest”, or public welfare as defined by the government. Courts evaluating restrictions on commercial speech apply a four-part test, called the Central Hudson test, which was applied in Zauderer: 1. The speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. 2. The asserted governmental interest must be substantial. 3. The regulation must directly advance the governmental interest. 4. The regulation must not be more extensive than necessary. On point 1, speech that is factual cannot be regulated and is protected under the 1st Amendment. If the speech is misleading, then it may be regulated depending on other factors. On point 2, the government’s interest in regulating speech must be “substantial”, which means the government must prove that its interest in regulating the speech is about protecting the welfare of the people in a way that is significant. If misleading speech exists, but you cannot prove a significant harm from it, then this speech cannot be regulated. On point 3, after proving that the speech is both misleading and can cause significant harm, the government has to prove that the regulation in question actually does advance the government’s interest in reducing this harm. So, with the car salesman example, if we prove that the salesman’s ad is misleading, and that his lack of disclosure of safety issues causes significant harm to consumers, then the government’s regulation on that ad has to actually address that. On point 4, any regulation on speech to address a harm must be narrowly tailored. So if the government makes a law to force car salesmen to disclose safety issues in their ads, the government cannot then also ban car salesmen from marketing their cars. It is one thing to require that the ads disclose safety issues, and it is another to ban the ads altogether. One approach is narrow and tailored, which is allowed, and the other approach is broad and not protected by the Constitution. What does this all mean? It means that freedom of speech, even in the U.S., where we enjoy the 1st Amendment, has its limits. The government can, and often does, limit speech under narrowly tailored rules to protect public welfare. The question that remains, however, is whether these exceptions to free speech are good enough to protect our safety and well-being. The internet, for example, is a space of abundant information, where the harms of misinformation can run amok. Yet, choosing to regulate it further can open a new can of worms, opening up the precedent for restricting more speech. As with all things, balance is necessary. That balance between security and freedom remains an age-old question. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Vaibhav Sinha
LinkedIn as Late-Stage Capitalism LinkedIn is easy to mock because it often feels ridiculous. Feeds are lined with posts of people claiming corporate prestige with saturated jargon that no one really understands. Layoffs become “new chapters”, and desperation is portrayed as being “open to new opportunities”. Ordinary employment is narrated as a moral awakening, with those who can’t follow the cryptic lexicon as being simply not on their level. The language is so polished it begins to feel inhuman, as if every post is passed through a motivational filter and carefully stripped of any real insight. But the absurdity of LinkedIn is not the most interesting thing about it. The surface-level jeering about its content and audience, while amusing, overshadows the more serious question of whypeople feel compelled to perform this way at all. In the United States, work has never been just a job. One’s profession has been treated as evidence of character, discipline, education and personal worth. LinkedIn takes this philosophy and gives it a platform and a name. It repackages the worker into a public profile, an SEO project, and hosts a space to permanently market employability. It seems the point is not just being suited or capable for the job, because having the right requirements and a well-established CV is outdated in this age of corporate recruitment. Instead, you need to accompany this with a digital, legible mandate with at least 500 connections, or else who are you? The platform is the epitome of late-stage capitalism. It not only connects people to jobs, but it also teaches people how to behave in a labour market where employability itself is theatrical. In 2025, LinkedIn reported 1.2 billion members globally and $17.8 billion in revenue, a staggering amount in any case. Following suit with many other social platforms, they have introduced new AI tools for job seekers, hirers and sales. This is important because not only do you have to perform within this stagnant job market, but you are also judged on this by AI. Reuters reported that LinkedIn’s AI hiring agents were projected to bring in $450 million annually by “helping” recruiters identify suitable profiles across the network. This shifts the focus entirely. In this respect, the game is no longer about experience; it’s about SEO and corporate literacy. The worker is not simply applying for jobs. They are processed as a signal, not a human; transformed into a set of keywords, a network, and a history of ambition within the confines of AI-approved jargon. The introduction of AI in workplaces across the U.S. has undeniably reduced job openings and is now cutting into the recruitment sector. Not only did you lose your job to AI, but you were denied your next one because you didn’t meet the lexical quota. To Karl Marx, this advent is unsurprising. He argued that capitalism turns labour power itself into a commodity: the worker must sell their capacity to work in order to survive. LinkedIn expertly shows how far that logic has travelled, and how conceited the job market has become. The worker is no longer selling only time, skill or effort. They are expected to sell personality, resilience, digital consistency, network capabilities, and a narrative of constant self-improvement. One becomes part of the package. This commodification is the real poison of the platform. It makes the crisis of work, or lack thereof, a flaw of self-presentation. If you cannot get a job, the implied solution is to optimise your profile. If nobody replies, message better. If you are invisible, post more. If none of the above work, you can buy an “affordable” subscription of around $40 a month to help boost your presence. The subscription becomes even darker when it’s realised that visibility has become monetised. Of course, capitalism and the ruling class have always understood this premise, as has society. But LinkedIn has attempted to remove these barriers in a way that fills its own pocket instead. The premium advertises AI-powered tools for job searches and profile optimisation, InMail, profile view numbers, personalised insights and access to “top applicant” jobs. There is something dystopian about a labour market in which workers are already forced to compete for attention, then offered, as a necessity, a plethora of paid tools to become more visible in the competition. These class politics are not subtle. Despite LinkedIn’s attempts to profit from class visibility, they present as a neutral space for opportunity. They reward those who already understand the architecture of professional culture, have polished profiles, institutional confidence, internship language and established networks. A working-class person may boast intelligence, be capable, reliable and perfectly suited for a role, yet still be punished for not knowing how to read themselves in the approved style. Pew Research Centre found that LinkedIn use in the U.S. is sharply divided by education. In 2024, a reported that 53% of Americans with at least a bachelor’s degree said they use LinkedIn. This compares sharply to the 28% who have a college education, and 10% of those who have high school degrees or less. This disparity paints an illustrative picture. If LinkedIn becomes part of how opportunity is accessed, then paradoxically, the unequal access to LinkedIn’s culture becomes yet another class barrier. This is why LinkedIn is not just bad, it’s an active obstacle for those trying to find work in modern society. It is bad because it reveals a labour market that increasingly demands shallow performance. It is bad because it asks people to translate fear into marketable self-growth and instability into ambition. It turns structural insecurity into an expensive subscription. The cruellest part is that opting out becomes even harder. Online resources are more essential than ever for American job seekers. Pew found that as early as 2015, a large majority of recent US job seekers had solely used online resources to look and apply for work. The point is that digital presence has become increasingly difficult to
By Adia May
In the age of abundant information, where consumers can shop for information that confirms their biases, how is speech regulated, if at all? In the United States, we have the 1st Amendment, which states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Essentially, the Constitution prohibits the government from making certain forms of speech illegal. If Congress were to pass a law that makes it illegal for me to criticise the government, that law would be struck down by the courts because it is unconstitutional. In essence, speech is protected by our founding document, making it very difficult to regulate in the U.S. There are consequences that come from this level of freedom. Namely, in a world of misinformation and disinformation, people with large platforms can spread information that can have harmful effects. If a company is marketing a health product to a large audience, but it neglects to mention some of the negative side effects, that could create harm. If the audience buys these products without being informed of the harms it could pose, then effectively the advertisers have contributed to their harm via speech. Purposeful uses of information to mislead audiences can have a variety of impacts. If I sell you a car that is cheap and seemingly works well, but I neglect to mention that the brakes are faulty and need repair, that is a form of deception by omission. But that sleight of hand is enough to put a customer in danger of a car crash, should they not address the faulty brakes on time. But this is why, even with the near absolute nature of the 1st Amendment, there are some limitations. In the landmark 1985 case of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that “commercial speech, such as attorney advertising, is protected under the First Amendment, provided it is not false or misleading. Restrictions are permissible only if they serve a substantial governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to advance that interest”. This means that an advertiser’s speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, unless the speech is false or misleading, and that laws to restrict this form of speech serve a narrowly defined “government interest”. To go back to the car salesman example, if a state or federal law established regulations that required him or her to disclose information about faulty brakes and other safety issues with a car they are selling, that law would not be struck down by the courts. Put simply, a seller is not protected under the 1st Amendment in this narrow example, when providing false information, especially where the restriction on speech is narrow and is connected to “government interest”, or public welfare as defined by the government. Courts evaluating restrictions on commercial speech apply a four-part test, called the Central Hudson test, which was applied in Zauderer: 1. The speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. 2. The asserted governmental interest must be substantial. 3. The regulation must directly advance the governmental interest. 4. The regulation must not be more extensive than necessary. On point 1, speech that is factual cannot be regulated and is protected under the 1st Amendment. If the speech is misleading, then it may be regulated depending on other factors. On point 2, the government’s interest in regulating speech must be “substantial”, which means the government must prove that its interest in regulating the speech is about protecting the welfare of the people in a way that is significant. If misleading speech exists, but you cannot prove a significant harm from it, then this speech cannot be regulated. On point 3, after proving that the speech is both misleading and can cause significant harm, the government has to prove that the regulation in question actually does advance the government’s interest in reducing this harm. So, with the car salesman example, if we prove that the salesman’s ad is misleading, and that his lack of disclosure of safety issues causes significant harm to consumers, then the government’s regulation on that ad has to actually address that. On point 4, any regulation on speech to address a harm must be narrowly tailored. So if the government makes a law to force car salesmen to disclose safety issues in their ads, the government cannot then also ban car salesmen from marketing their cars. It is one thing to require that the ads disclose safety issues, and it is another to ban the ads altogether. One approach is narrow and tailored, which is allowed, and the other approach is broad and not protected by the Constitution. What does this all mean? It means that freedom of speech, even in the U.S., where we enjoy the 1st Amendment, has its limits. The government can, and often does, limit speech under narrowly tailored rules to protect public welfare. The question that remains, however, is whether these exceptions to free speech are good enough to protect our safety and well-being. The internet, for example, is a space of abundant information, where the harms of misinformation can run amok. Yet, choosing to regulate it further can open a new can of worms, opening up the precedent for restricting more speech. As with all things, balance is necessary. That balance between security and freedom remains an age-old question. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Vaibhav Sinha
Follow Us