It creates a committee which is extremely likely to pass policies which violate the Constitution. In fact, if there were really effective ways to reduce crime o

It creates a committee which is extremely likely to pass policies which violate the Constitution. In fact, if there were really effective ways to reduce crime online which didn't violate it, they likely would have been passed twenty years ago without trying to piggyback on another bill. I agree, the EFF should have elaborated more on concrete examples of how it violates the Constitution. The potential space for bad policy is gargantuan and hard to explore without additional hints or context. Given that enumerated in rhetoric, tech company policy, recent events and the bill itself: It may create potential for witch hunts. Think of some recent conspiracy theories here. To censor speech which comes close to looking "suspicious" whomever is the one to define this. This is most likely the government. It may push companies to use filters which over-censor speech and it may be impossible to get a remedy at the scale at which they operate. Trolls could abuse mechanisms to silence opinions they disagree with. If a government decides to smear someone's reputation through a coordinated campaign, they could make the argument they are a danger to society and pressure platforms to silence them.