It's so depressing how low the bar is, for regulatory frameworks. Maybe it's totally co-opted by industry incumbents, and serves as a moat against competition.

It's so depressing how low the bar is, for regulatory frameworks. Maybe it's totally co-opted by industry incumbents, and serves as a moat against competition. Maybe it's about electoral politics. IE, the problem is stifling of specific voices supportive of Trump... or the opposite. We can't even hope that it will be designed logically to serve a principle or goal. I'm not saying regulation (or better legislation) isn't necessary. Twitter set out to be the "public square" and succeeded. It's a privately controlled public square. This is a problem for democracy. It's no joke either. Twitter & Facebook can and have been the launch point for elections, revolutions, coups and such. "It's their site, they can do what they want" is not, IMO, reasonable. On a related point "platform monopolies," are a well established problem, and we've even had some court ruling to that effect. Courts are narrow though. Legislation is the only way to establish principles. This should be a "step back and think big picture" situation. Establish principles that guarantee freedoms, media diversity or whatever the goals are. Instead, the debate will be dictated by electoral considerations... on both the pro and con side. I doubt they're even thinking past the immediate election.