The Paradox of the Post Button

Author’s Note: This is the first “regular” newsletter after the opening series of five. If you haven’t read those yet, start https://craigspilker.com/writing/what-exactly-is-bothand These will be shorter, punchier, and hopefully worth your time between meetings, kid pickups, or doom-scrolling sessions. Let’s get into it.

My daughters wanted to post something political last week.

Both of them. Different platforms. Same energy.

Now, I’ve raised them to be free thinkers. My partner and I have spent years modeling what it looks like to question things, to form your own opinions, to not just parrot whatever the algorithm serves up. So when they came to me with this, I should have been proud.

I was proud…..and I was terrified.

Here’s the thing about being a parent in 2026: you spend years telling your kids their voice matters, and then the moment they want to use that voice in public, your brain immediately flashes forward to college admissions officers, future employers, first dates gone wrong, and that one HR person who definitely Googles everyone.

Time is a flat circle. Except when it’s not.

In today’s climate, posting something can become part of your “permanent record” (a phrase my high school principal would be thrilled to know still haunts me). And for a not-fully-developed brain, a large audience like all of social media is a dangerous playground.

So what did I do? What any reasonable parent would do.

I panicked internally, smiled externally, and said “No” and then I got the eye-roll, then I backtracked and then she went downstairs in a hurry and then I quickly hurried after her and then as she tried to close the door quiclky, I stopped it with my hand and said “Maybe….but let’s talk.” What every teenage child wants to hear when you stiffle their altruism.

The Paradox

Here’s what’s wild about free speech in 2026, and honestly it’s the reason I wanted to write about this topic for our first real both/and dive.

On one hand: free speech is under attack. People are scared to say what they think. Pew Research found that 40% of teens are scared to voice opinions online because they feel unqualified, and another 39% fear backlash from their peers. That’s not nothing. That’s almost half of young people who have something to say but won’t say it.

There’s a concept in communication theory called the “spiral of silence.” It’s been around since the 1970s, and it basically says that people who think they hold minority opinions will self-censor for fear of being ostracized. The scary part? Researchers found this applies to social media too. Of Americans who were unwilling to discuss a controversial topic in person, only 0.3% (not 3%, zero-point-three percent) were willing to post about it online.

Social media was supposed to be the great equalizer. The place where everyone gets a microphone. Instead, it turns out the microphone comes with a lot of fine print that no one understands or reads and will defininetely turn into your data being taken.

On the other hand: free speech has never been freer. Literally anyone with a phone can publish to the entire world. No gatekeepers. No editors. No FCC license required. 97% of young people use social media daily. 70% of them got election information from social media in 2020. That’s not suppression. That’s saturation.

So which is it? Is speech being suppressed or has it never been more accessible?

The answer, as you might have guessed, is both.

Speech has never been more accessible and never been more surveilled, moderated, and loaded with consequences. Both things are true. At the same time. Welcome to the gray zone.

The Zero-Sum Trap (Or: The Cliche That Refuses to Die Because It’s Actually True)

Here’s where I think most people get stuck, and honestly where the conversation goes sideways every Thanksgiving.

We treat free speech like a zero-sum game.

Now, “zero-sum” is one of those phrases that’s become so common (or forgotten or misunderstood) it’s almost meaningless. Like “synergy” or “pivot” or “let’s circle back.” You hear it and your brain kind of glazes over. Yeah yeah, zero-sum, I know what that means, move on.

But here’s the thing about cliches: they became cliches because they were true. Not trendy. Not clever. True. And the problem with something becoming cliche is that we stop actually thinking about it. We nod along without processing. The idea fades into background noise precisely because everyone already “knows” it.

So let’s actually talk about what zero-sum means. Because I think it matters more now than it did when the phrase was fresh.

The term comes from game theory, specifically from mathematicians John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern back in the 1940s. They were trying to model strategic decision-making, and they identified a category of games where the total gains and losses always add up to zero. Poker is zero-sum. If I win $100, someone else at the table lost $100. Chess is zero-sum. One winner, one loser. Dividing a pizza is zero-sum. The more slices you take, the fewer I get.

In a zero-sum game, your victory requires my defeat. Full stop.

The insight that made this concept revolutionary (before it became a thing people say at board meetings to sound smart or on "X” to lure in people with your strock-trading-wisdom) is that most of life is not actually zero-sum. Most situations allow for outcomes where both sides gain. Or both sides lose. Or one side gains without the other losing anything at all.

Trade is not zero-sum. I give you money, you give me coffee, we’re both happier than before. Collaboration is not zero-sum. Two people working together can produce more than they would separately. Conversation is not zero-sum. I can learn something without you forgetting it.

But here’s the trap: even though most of life isn’t zero-sum, our brains are wired to see it that way.

Researchers have found that zero-sum thinking is “a generalised view of life as a zero-sum game” that shapes how we perceive threats, process information, and interact with people who disagree with us. It creates what psychologists call “hostile attribution bias,” which is exactly what it sounds like. You start assuming the other side is out to get you. That their gain must be your loss. That any compromise is surrender.

And this isn’t a partisan thing. Studies published in Science Advances found that both liberals and conservatives engage in zero-sum thinking when it benefits them. Conservatives do it when the status quo is challenged. Liberals do it when the status quo is upheld. We’re all susceptible. The trigger is just different.

Here’s where it gets relevant to speech.

Zero-sum thinking about free speech sounds like this:

“If you don’t speak up, you’re complicit.”

“If you speak up about the wrong thing, you’re taking attention away from what really matters.”

“Silence is violence.” (A phrase that is, itself, a perfect zero-sum construction.)

“If they’re allowed to speak, our voices are being suppressed.”

Each of these framings assumes that speech is a fixed resource. That there’s only so much attention, so much airtime, so much moral credibility to go around. And if someone else uses theirs, there’s less for you.

But that’s not how speech works.

Your silence doesn’t amplify my voice. Your post doesn’t silence mine. The internet is not a pizza. There is no fixed number of slices.

And yet. We act like there is. We keep score. We track who posted and who didn’t. We treat every controversy like a roll call where absence equals betrayal.

This framing turns every decision to post (or not post) into a moral referendum on your character. And that’s exhausting. It’s also wrong.

Research on zero-sum beliefs and political conversation found that people who view politics as zero-sum are significantly more likely to avoid political discussions entirely. They see conversations across difference as inherently adversarial. As having a winner and a loser. So why bother? Why engage with someone if engaging means one of you has to lose?

This is the trap. Zero-sum thinking doesn’t just make us fight. It makes us stop talking. It turns potential dialogue into perceived combat, and then we retreat to our corners.

The cliche version of this insight is “it’s not a zero-sum game.” The version that actually matters is this: the moment you start treating speech as scarce, as something to be hoarded or weaponized or strategically deployed, you’ve already lost something important. You’ve turned conversation into competition. Connection into conquest.

Free speech isn’t a use-it-or-lose-it proposition.

The First Amendment doesn’t expire if you decide to sleep on your hot take. Your voice doesn’t disappear because you chose not to weigh in on today’s outrage cycle. Sometimes the most powerful speech is the one you chose not to post because you thought about it first.

The zero-sum framing tells you that silence is defeat. The both/and framing tells you that silence can be strategy, or wisdom, or simply “not yet.”

This brings me back to what I actually said to my daughters.

The Pocketbook of Words

I told them their voice matters. Full stop.

I told them that if corporations think they’re valuable enough to market to (and oh boy, do they), then they’re valuable enough to have opinions worth hearing. If the world treats them as consumers with purchasing power, then they also have power in their words.

But here’s the rule I gave them, and it’s the one that matters most:

It can’t be a “since others are doing it I will too” kind of statement. It has to be their choice.

See, this is the part that I think gets lost in the noise. Most of what we see on social media is people jumping on a bandwagon. Someone posts, it gets traction, others pile on, and suddenly you feel like you have to say something or you’re somehow failing a moral test.

Influencers (a word that still makes me cringe) are literally just people who said they liked a product and brands saw an opportunity. The whole ecosystem is built on social proof. On doing what others do. On fitting in by posting out.

But that’s not speech. That’s mimicry.

Real speech, the kind worth protecting, is the stuff you’ve actually thought about. The opinions you’ve wrestled with. The takes that cost you something to form.

My daughters posted. I was proud of them. Not because of what they said, but because they could articulate why they were saying it. That’s the difference.

The Marketplace Isn’t Broken. It’s Different.

Quick history lesson, I promise it’s short.

The phrase “marketplace of ideas” comes from a Supreme Court dissent in 1919. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the best test of truth is whether an idea can survive in “the competition of the market.” Let the ideas fight it out. The good ones will win.

This made sense when the “market” was newspapers, pamphlets, and public debates. When there were barriers to entry. When bad ideas died in obscurity because no one would print them.

That’s not our world anymore.

Legal scholars now argue that the marketplace metaphor is “a relic.” Today’s speech environment is marked by information overload, algorithmic amplification, and platforms that are either unable or unwilling to act as referees.

But here’s the both/and: the marketplace isn’t broken. It’s just different.

The old free speech framework was government versus citizen. Can the government stop you from speaking? That’s a relatively clean question.

The new framework is platform versus user versus advertiser versus mob versus algorithm versus your future self who has to live with what you posted in 2019.

That’s messier. And it requires new thinking.

MAYA (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable)

If you’ve read the earlier newsletters, you know I love Raymond Loewy’s MAYA framework. The idea that the best innovations are the most advanced thing people will actually accept.

Applied to speech, here’s what MAYA looks like:

Most Advanced: You have access to a global platform. You can reach more people with a single post than most historical figures reached in their entire lives. Use it.

Yet Acceptable: Do it thoughtfully. With your own reasoning. Understanding that it has consequences. Not because the bandwagon is rolling and you need to hop on.

For my daughters, this meant: Yes, post. But make it yours. Not a copy-paste. Not a repost without thought. Not a “me too” to fit in with friends.

Speech that’s yours is defensible. Speech that’s borrowed is just noise.

What Now? (The Context Part)

Alright, let’s land this plane with some specific takeaways for different audiences. This is the format I used in the opening series and I’ll keep using it because frankly, context is everything.

For teens and young people: Your voice matters. It really does. And also? Timing matters. Speaking up is not a now-or-never proposition. If you’re not ready to articulate why you believe something, it’s okay to wait. Silence today doesn’t mean silence forever. Your future self will thank you for posts that came from thought, not impulse.

For parents: Teach them how to think, not what to think. And hold both truths: the “permanent record” fear is real (colleges do check, employers do Google) and it’s overblown (most posts disappear into the void, nobody cares about your 2019 take on avocado toast). Your job is to model thoughtfulness, not fear.

For the cultural enforcers: You know who you are. The ones who demand statements. Who track who posted and who didn’t. Who treat silence as betrayal. Here’s your both/and: you’re both advocating for important causes and creating the very spiral of silence you claim to be fighting against. When everyone’s scared to speak, nobody’s really speaking. They’re just performing.

The Gray Bow

Free speech in 2026 is a paradox. It’s under attack and it’s never been freer. People are scared to speak and everyone has a megaphone. The marketplace of ideas is broken and it’s working exactly as designed for this new world.

Both things are true.

My daughters get this, I think. Or at least they’re starting to. They posted, and the world didn’t end. They also didn’t become viral sensations. They just added their voice to the mix, thoughtfully, on their own terms.

That’s what free speech looks like when you hold the paradox. When you reject the zero-sum framing. When you realize that posting is a choice, not an obligation.

Your voice matters. Use it when you’re ready.

Not when the algorithm tells you to.

Thanks for reading Both/And with Craig Spilker. If this resonated, share it with someone who might need to hear it. And if you’re new here, subscribe to get these delivered to your inbox.

See you in two weeks.

References

On the Spiral of Silence and Self-Censorship:

Hampton, K., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014). “Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence.’” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/

On Teen Social Media Use and Political Expression:

CIRCLE at Tufts University. “Media-Making about Social and Political Issues Builds Confidence in Teens.” https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/media-making-about-social-and-political-issues-builds-confidence-teens

CIRCLE at Tufts University. “Young People Turn to Online Political Engagement During COVID-19.” https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/young-people-turn-online-political-engagement-during-covid-19

Springtide Research Institute. (2024). “When It Comes to Political Issues, Young People Both Value and Distrust Social Media.” https://springtideresearch.org/post/politics/when-it-comes-to-political-issues-young-people-both-value-and-distrust-social-media

On Zero-Sum Thinking:

Davidai, S. & Ongis, M. (2019). “The politics of zero-sum thinking: The relationship between political ideology and the belief that life is a zero-sum game.” Science Advances. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay3761

Halperin, E. et al. (2024). “Zero-sum beliefs and the avoidance of political conversations.” Communications Psychology. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00095-4

Andrews Fearon, P. & Götz, F. (2021). “Zero-sum mindset and its discontents.” Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-02/SM-WP-2021-001%20Zero-sum%20mindset%20and%20its%20discontents.pdf

Harvard Magazine. (2025). “Democrats, Republicans, and Zero-Sum Thinking.” https://www.harvardmagazine.com/social-sciences/harvard-research-republicans-democrats-zero-sum-thinking

On the Marketplace of Ideas:

Goldman, A. & Cox, J. “Speech, Truth, and the Free Market for Ideas.” Georgia State University. https://excen.gsu.edu/jccox/research/speechtruth.pdf

The First Amendment Encyclopedia. “Marketplace of Ideas.” Middle Tennessee State University. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/marketplace-of-ideas/

Stanford Law School. “First Amendment Metaphors: The Death of the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ and the Rise of the Post-Truth ‘Free Flow of Information.’” https://law.stanford.edu/publications/first-amendment-metaphors-the-death-of-the-marketplace-of-ideas-and-the-rise-of-the-post-truth-free-flow-of-information/

Lukianoff, G. “Does free speech ‘inevitably’ lead towards truth? Is the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ a broken metaphor?” FIRE. https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/does-free-speech-inevitably-lead-towards-truth-marketplace-ideas

On Social Media and College Admissions:

Town & Country. (2023). “Do College Admissions Officers Actually Check Applicants’ Social Media Accounts?” https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a44566726/do-colleges-look-at-social-media/

Consumer Reports. “Yes, Colleges Check Applicants’ Social Media Posts.” https://www.consumerreports.org/social-media/colleges-check-applicants-social-media-posts/