I've seen worse laws. Politicians not understanding how websites count users is a given. "It also excludes email and chat apps (though it’s unclear why)." Bec

I've seen worse laws. Politicians not understanding how websites count users is a given. "It also excludes email and chat apps (though it’s unclear why)." Because they're not common carriers. I can't read someone else's email or chat messages. They are invite or whitelist based and therefore not public (common) information. "First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court. This is every spammer’s dream." Death threats and spam is not opinion. I'm questioning the author's honesty when he thinks calls to violence are protected and make for good court cases. And I dont think spammers are going to court anytime soon either. " “disclose accurate information regarding its content management, data management, and business practices.” ... it also is going to effectively require that websites publish all the details that spammers, trolls, and others need to be more effective. Shadowbanning and throtteling comes to mind on this one. They are essentially requiring transparent policies like how HN [dead] tags work. This might indeed help spammers be more efficient. but who knows "“qualified immunity” for blocking certain commercial email messages, but only with certain conditions, including enabling a dispute resolution process for spammers" This borders on pure bait. 'certain commercial email messages' is known in the industry as spam. Which they are therefore still allowed to block first and resolve later. The email section of this law is just pure bliss. If enforced, no more bouncing emails with self-hosted domains, if its spam filtered there's finally a resolution procedure. less monopolistic walls to enter the market. What social media companies are ACTUALLY required by this law to state biannually: A) content removal; (B) content demonetization; (C) content deprioritization; (D) the addition of an assessment to content; (E) account suspension; (F) account removal; or (G) any other action taken in accordance with the platform's acceptable use policy This codeification isn't bad. My only concern is not the law but the absolute state of how social media companies operate. We've already seen the weirdest implementation horrors of GDPR sometimes outright geoblocking entirety of europe which is silly and a minor inconvenience.