The recent court opinion questioning the Florida anticensorship statute noted that in censoring some speech, the tech companies are choosing what speech they will convey.

Common-carrier status is particularly consistent with the First Amendment because the companies aren’t merely private actors. Yes, they are private. And they might protest that their dominance is simply a product of their private enterprise and superior product.

Not really. The point isn’t to restrict those that flourish, or that are large, but to recognize the reality that they provide publicly accessible conveyance for speech.

This sort of distinction has long been ingrained in federal law—including Section 230(c)(1) of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which distinguishes between information provided by an interactive computer service and “information provided by another information content provider.” Whatever the shortcomings of that statute, it draws a common and reasonable distinction between a company’s own speech and the speech of others for which it provides a conduit. This distinction doesn’t apply in the case of a newspaper. Its pages are not open to the public to post their views, and so it is speaking for itself when it makes editorial decisions about letters and other outside contributions.

CEOs “admit fear of failure keeps them up at night more than any other concern.”

But even before it reaches that point, it can steer us away from life’s joyful, fulfilling adventures, by discouraging us from taking risks and trying new things.

He said that some of his patients—people with a particular need to control tightly all parts of their lives

In fact, perfectionism and the fear of failure go hand in hand: They lead you to believe that success isn’t about doing something good