That is a strawman argument. Re-read the article, this does NOT say everything is protected. Rather, it is clarifying what is protected and what is not.

Regardless, why can’t a platform censor anything they want? It’s their platform and they can do what they want. If censoring eventually pushes people away from your platform, then the market corrected itself.

There's nothing factually wrong with your opinion. I understand it and respect it. For me, I believe that platforms as massive and widespread as Facebook or Twitter distort the free-market ruleset, and that some amount of regulation is in fact healthy for the industry they participate in and society as a whole.

Once we get to take a look at the actual text, we'll be able to have rational, reasoned discussions about whether this particular regulation is healthy, or unhealthy.

I respect and understand your opinion as well, but making companies become regulated as far as what content they can or must show is opening Pandora’s box. Especially with a government that gets a lot of bad press, they could use that regulation to drown out any voice.

If the government is really concerned about people’s voices and free speech being impeded, they should make their own forum or social feed where nothing is censored. We’ll see how that turns out.

They can but not when they publicly declare that they are fair to all users when in fact they make their policies after a political agenda. Much has been uncovered by whistleblowers from big tech companies.

Why should speech be protected from those speaking it? This is a great way to literally put words into someone else’s mouth.

Good point.

There should definetly be a requirement for a large mass of users.

Because otherwise FB, Tweeter and Google can push their views.

So a "must be a large social network or forum" must be a requirement in this law.

If Tweeter, Google or FB tried to push their agenda they could do it easily. Obviously fringe/small forums must be exempt.

It is their prerogative to push an agenda. It is not illegal to create an organization or business that pushes a political agenda - in fact, many do.

You don't think this has anything to do with the plethora of suggestions that Twitter and YouTube apparently suppress conservative views?

I think it has to do with it 100%. I don’t believe it’s true, but I do believe it has to do with those rumors.

My understanding is that the opposite is often true. That is: social media companies do not implement algorithms designed to take down racist content because it would take down content posted by many conservative politicians.

Things change. Fox is not the same.