I agree, its not fully analogous. But it would be easy to write a law that has unintended consequences. Part of the problem with FB, Twitter, Youtube is that t

I agree, its not fully analogous. But it would be easy to write a law that has unintended consequences. Part of the problem with FB, Twitter, Youtube is that they are closed inoperable systems, a problem that doesnt hamper email. Things like real name policies also suppress speech. If a law were in place preventing Facebook censorship, it would also need to prevent deplatforming and facebook deciding who can and cant use its platform. Blocking speech they dont agree with, is different that blocking all speech from a speaker that sometimes says things Facebook doesnt like. There is also the issue of the newsfeed ranking algorithm itself. Is deranking something more than a thousand posts deep the same as censorship? They can basically control the spread of information, by allowing people to post it, but not allowing it to rise up the ranks. If said ranking exerted preference or bias, and applied to everyones feeds and all their groups, facebook can control the conversation without traditional censorship. At the same time, algorithmic news sorting basically IS the product, and thats what people go to it for.