So it's more a free speech law that avoids censorship.
Copy paste from a reddit comment:
Since no one apparently read the article or paid attention to the actually meaningful quote:
The draft "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms."
In other words, this isn't about the federal government removing content. It is about the extent to which social media platforms are legally shielded from lawsuits when they choose to remove content.
The "worst case scenario" of this leaked draft isn't the federal government picks and chooses what content is censored—it's that platforms might have to allow almost every kind of content or risk being sued. Which is the opposite of censorship.
(Please note: I am not arguing in favor of this draft. Only pointing out what it is actually saying sans the rampant fear-mongering going on right now.)
Once we get to take a look at the actual text, we'll be able to have rational, reasoned discussions about whether this particular regulation is healthy, or unhealthy.
If the government is really concerned about people’s voices and free speech being impeded, they should make their own forum or social feed where nothing is censored. We’ll see how that turns out.
There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users.
Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views.
So a "must be a large social network or forum" must be a requirement in this law.
If Tweeter, Google or FB tried to push their agenda they could do it easily. Obviously fringe/small forums must be exempt.
In that article, CNN reports on the draft order:
>According to the summary seen by CNN
CNN hasn't even seen the draft apparently. They've only seen a summary of it and they dare make all these extrapolations.
This seems deceitful. I'm not impressed.
P.S. If this Executive order comes to fruition I'm going to file a lawsuit if this post gets removed!
A less-biased article would describe the order as an attempt to reduce the political favoritism being done by social media.
Not least of which: how does one make a platform with global dominance into a national public utility? How does one split it or manage it when it had to comply with so many local laws?
In addition, choice of pen has no effect on the ability to communicate your message while choice of social media does. Switching from Twitter to Mastodon isn't a solution because Twitter is the place where the public discussion is taking place.
Finally, writing instruments such as pens are something that anyone can easily make on their own. On the other hand, due to the required technical expertise, infrastructure, and network effects it is difficult to enter the social media market.
Why doesn't this article directly link to the allegedly leaked documents?
The quoted paragraph (the article's first paragraph) contains a link to a Tweet which links to a blog post which links to a CNN article.
AFAICT, none of them link to the actual documents.
To future journalists: link to the documents in your article. Otherwise you run the risk of readers writing the whole thing off as a misinformation campaign. This possibility can't be ruled out at this point.
Nobody involved has the actual documents.
From the second paragraph of the CNN article:
> The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN,
If they claim a draft is available and it isn't, there IS a story, and it's that they are deceitful.
IF CNN and Politico can both claim to have seen it yet neither sees fit to make full and original text available... while telling us there is serious evil afoot...
...then I just shrug it off with an eye-roll and conclude they are "The Enemy Of The People".
And of course I'm using Trump's rhetoric just to annoy them and save a lot of breath trying to explain it further. Oh the time it saves!
While we hate censorship from the government, the same should be applied to those de facto online big guns and those who actually are in control inside the companies.