It would be pretty funny, in a terrible way, if the First Amendment was gutted in the name of free speech. I'm somewhat amazed at how poorly the people in favo

It would be pretty funny, in a terrible way, if the First Amendment was gutted in the name of free speech. I'm somewhat amazed at how poorly the people in favor of this understand what appeal these social networks was to let them grow large in the first place. Isn't it obvious that it wasn't by letting everyone post anything? We've had that all along. No need to force social networks to do what has already always been an option (go ahead and start that personal blog and post all your thoughts on it). But of course, that's not what the politicians mean. They use the words "common carrier" to make it sound like they aren't doing what they are actually doing: attempting to force social media companies to be megaphones for the political messages of the politicians. De facto state media. The very opposite of free speech and the first amendment. It would be laughable if the Supreme Court was principled.