This will leave an internet for those who can (i.e the big players).
Sorry, I think you actually do want a new law, not to modify this one. I have no idea how to define the websites that you want this to even apply to -- size? revenue? number of users? does twitter count? mastodon server instances? gab? reddit? texas instruments support forums? IRC servers?
This feels super arbitrary when almost every website to some extent republishes third party content.
(1) Someone has a long-established relationship with an internet service.
(2) That service makes an arbitrary and unexpected change to the nature of that relationship.
(3) That change causes material damage.
Then the site can be sued.
I don't think that would cover the current Trump business, they've been telegraphing for years that he would be banned eventually. But it might close the door to more damaging abuses of power where they strategic on timing and opens up some review of how clearly they are giving notice. Might help with the app store complaints.
That specific idea isn't going to be good - I've probably missed a bunch of relevant stuff - but maybe the idea can be salvaged and implemented with only mild damage to the internet ecosystem.
> Sorry, I think you actually do want a new law, not to modify this one.
There isn't really a difference, but sure. I don't care if changes are implemented as an amendment or a new bill.
I won't worry about technicalities, because I have no idea what they are. But it is becoming abundantly clear that the social media companies have political power and are willing to wield it if they think that it is appropriate, similar to newspapers and television. It is reasonable that the regulations for social and non-social media converge.