  The steady flow of social-media cases toward the Supreme Court shows a nation
reworking its fundamental relationship with technology. The cases raise a host
of questions ranging from difficult to impossible: how to nurture a vibrant
public square when a few tech giants dominate the flow of information, how
social media can be at the same time free from conformist groupthink and also
protected against harmful disinformation campaigns, and how government and
industry can cooperate on such problems without devolving toward censorship.
  To such profound questions, this Essay offers a comparatively modest
contribution -- what not to do. Always the lawyer's instinct is toward analogy,
considering what has come before and how it reveals what should come next.
Almost invariably, that is the right choice. The law's cautious evolution
protects society from disruptive change. But almost is not always, and, with
social media, disruptive change is already upon us. Using social-media laws
from Texas and Florida as a case study, this Essay shows how social-media's
distinct features render it poorly suited to analysis by analogy and argues
that courts should instead shift their attention toward crafting legal
doctrines targeted to address social media's unique ills.
