> Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a d

> Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a different matter. They aren't separate, in fact in the case of regulations, the subjects are deeply intertwined with each other: The introduction of "allowed algorithms" is a clear sign that the government in question has a vested interest in controlling the information feeds of their population. Slippery slope be damned, it creates a path for the government to say: "Hey, we want you to use this algorithm instead & set it as the default: Nothing suspicious, just use it. ;)" Even if the algorithm in question is just "sort by newest", the fact that a body of control is exerting influence on which algorithms are allowed & what is the default algorithm to be used sets a precedence of control that results in more power being sent to the government: Don't like the algorithms being used? Have the government solve it!