If you read the full text it appears this is an attempt to create some kind of social-media court you are required to go through before suing an internet compan

If you read the full text it appears this is an attempt to create some kind of social-media court you are required to go through before suing an internet company in regular state court. This bill: Creates a Digital communications commission, If you encounter "UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES" by an internet company with more then 100k users, you can make a case with the commision. The commision reviews your case and if you prevail, the commision can then grant "Equitable Relief" which is a legal term of art meaning non-monetary relief. Ie, government forces you to stop doing whatever it was that aggrieved the plaintiff. Examples of unfair practices: "hate speech; undermine election integrity; disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news; or authorize, encourage, or carry out violations of users' privacy" My take: Some terms like "conspiracy theory" are conspicuously absent from the definitions section. The specifics of user privacy violations are much better defined. This bill is a curious mix that simultaneously encourages user privacy and social media censorship. I think it would be worthwhile to split this into a censorship bill and a user privacy bill and then put both as ballot referendums.