Listen to the article
Utah Governor Takes on Social Media Giants, Compares Tech to Tobacco Industry
In a bold stance at the Cambridge Disinformation Summit in England, Utah Governor Spencer Cox pushed back against calls for increased internet censorship while simultaneously declaring war on social media algorithms, which he claims exploit human psychology.
The Republican governor made a virtual appearance at the annual event on Wednesday, where he found himself at odds with European and American participants advocating for greater government control over online content to protect users from harmful information.
“We’re treating this the way we treated the tobacco companies in the 1950s and 1960s in the United States. The way we’ve looked at the opioid companies in the ’90s and the early 2010s,” Cox told his audience, framing the tech industry as deliberately addictive and harmful, particularly to children.
Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September 2025, Cox has amplified his message that “social media is cancer” for both mental health and political discourse. The tragedy has thrust the second-term governor into the national spotlight, earning praise from prominent figures including celebrity psychologist Jonathan Haidt.
Cox has leveraged this momentum to launch campaign-style videos highlighting his determination to challenge tech companies that he believes are intentionally targeting young users.
Utah has taken concrete action under Cox’s leadership, becoming the second state to impose a tax on major online advertising companies while pursuing lawsuits against social media giants including Meta and TikTok. The state has also passed legislation giving users greater control over their online data.
During the summit, Cox made a crucial distinction between free speech and algorithmic manipulation. “It’s one thing to say that you should be able to say what you want to say online,” he explained. “It’s another thing to say… ‘I’m going to employ a device… to feed you information… because I know I can get you addicted.'”
The governor also expressed concern about automated accounts, noting that in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, the “vast majority” of inflammatory online reactions came from foreign “bots” designed to “help divide us.” Media watchdogs identified thousands of inaccurate posts from accounts linked to China, Russia, and Iran immediately following the incident.
Cox’s position placed him at odds with many summit participants who advocated for government intervention to identify and remove “disinformation.” He cautioned against this approach, referencing Biden administration policies that pressured companies to censor legitimate claims about COVID-19.
“I think sometimes the reaction can be as bad, or at least add to the harms that we’re talking about,” Cox warned. “If government gets too heavy handed, the conspiracy theories actually become more real.”
His stance was challenged by figures like Nina Jankowicz, former head of President Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, who maintained her goal was sharing “good information,” not “deciding what was true or false.” Cox remained firm that government should not be the arbiter of truth online.
Cox’s framing of social media companies as toxic has gained traction following recent court rulings. In March, courts in New Mexico and California determined that Meta and YouTube designed platforms to be addictive to adolescents in ways harmful to mental health, potentially forcing a significant overhaul of online business models.
However, critics like Cato Institute fellow David Inserra argue that targeting algorithms infringes on free speech protections. “Algorithms, and the use of algorithms to create speech, is speech,” Inserra contended, calling the comparison between Big Tech and Big Tobacco “deeply, deeply flawed” and “absurd.”
Inserra, who previously worked on Meta’s content policy team, emphasized that unlike tobacco, social media offers positive applications including community building and knowledge development. He advocates for education about healthy use rather than regulation.
For Cox, the issue has become personal. Following Kirk’s assassination, he found himself struggling with his own social media use. “I had a really hard time and it was leading to dark places for me personally,” he shared. “And finally, in December of last year, again, I deleted that platform from my phone. I can tell you I’ve been much healthier.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Governor Cox raises valid points about the addictive and harmful effects of social media. However, equating it to tobacco may be an oversimplification. The digital landscape is complex, and solutions will require multi-stakeholder collaboration.
Well said. Simplistic analogies often miss the nuance. A comprehensive, evidence-based approach will be critical in developing effective policies.
Interesting proposal to treat social media like tobacco. Given the mental health impacts, especially on youth, it’s a reasonable comparison. But a heavy-handed regulatory approach may raise free speech concerns. Nuanced policy solutions will be key.
I agree, a balance is needed to address harms while preserving open discourse. Thoughtful regulation, not outright bans, could be the way forward.
The tobacco comparison raises valid points about the potential harms of social media, particularly for vulnerable populations like youth. But regulating this space will require nuanced, multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the complexities involved.
While the tobacco analogy highlights real issues, social media is a far more nuanced phenomenon. Outright bans or heavy-handed regulation may backfire. Collaborative efforts involving industry, lawmakers, and mental health experts could yield more constructive solutions.
That’s a fair point. An open, consultative process engaging all stakeholders is more likely to produce effective and balanced policies.
The governor’s comparison to tobacco is thought-provoking, but the parallels may not be exact. Social media’s impact on mental health, especially for youth, is concerning. Policymakers should carefully weigh solutions that address harms while protecting free expression.
Agreed. The complexities of regulating social media warrant a measured, multi-faceted approach that considers both public health and civil liberties.
Governor Cox’s stance underscores the growing concerns around social media’s societal impact. However, equating it to tobacco may be an oversimplification. Crafting appropriate regulatory frameworks will require careful consideration of the unique digital landscape.
Agreed. The digital realm presents distinct challenges that demand tailored, evidence-based approaches, not one-size-fits-all solutions.