> Think through the mechanics of how this oversight would work. There are many ways this can work, and it's not necessarily simple. I don't have a specific pro

> Think through the mechanics of how this oversight would work. There are many ways this can work, and it's not necessarily simple. I don't have a specific proposal. > Now let years, maybe even decades go by. Now let's say some site you like gets essentially taken out - since massive sites aren't going to be able to do manual moderation of everything - by a regulator who leans to the opposite side of the political spectrum you do. 1) Manual moderation of massive sites is already going away for the most part. 2) Sites like reddit have swarms of moderators, the ability to report, and send legal notices to take down specific content and also be made. 3) We have laws about 'illegal content' these websites are already complying on a massive scale. 4) My suggestion was an oversight of excessive moderation and manipulation of opinion, not what your example suggests, which is the opposite. You literally don't have to moderate anything to not be charged with 'excessive censorship' or whatever. > Now you don't have much resource, since you aren't free to go off and try again - the regulator would just get that site too. We have a justice system for a reason. > I have a hard time seeing how this is better. We can all come with with 100 different imaginary scenarios where some very generic suggestion may fail. I don't see the point. Do you think there should be no laws about content? No libel laws? No copyright enforcement? Where do you draw the line? > And this is a weird stance for conservatives to be preaching, since the previous similar thing, the fairness doctrine, was no favourite thing of theirs. I'm not a conservative, but what I find more jarring is the people who want sites like facebook forced to be censored and moderated politically, while reddit can do whatever it pleases as long is it aligns with their political ideology. > This is one of those things where you can't say "only the government can solve this problem" unless the only speech you want to see protected is fairly-mainstream government-endorsed speech. Again, I did not suggest that there should be laws about what content is allowed. I actually think we already have too many such laws - I would personally do away with DMCA and other such bullshit. What we should have is a check on mass-scale censorship and manipulation of opinion by corporations.