I don't think so. If it actually did anything on its face, it would violate the Constitution and and also the explicit safe harbor for moderation in Section 230. It's seems to have been written specifically to avoid hitting the Section 230 moderation safe harbor, so it does nothing. But it provides the sponsor the ability to pretend to be doing something, and to xpoint to having sponsored a bill on the issue in campaign material, while conveniently ignoring that the bill would do nothing at all.
Oh, wait, reading it myself, it gets a bit worse on the “intentionally does nothing" front in Section 1, para. 2: “This section only applies if the interactive computer service provider: a. Is immune from civil liability under federal law;”
“We are going to make them civilly liable under state law only if the feds have expressly preempted our ability to do that.” Oh, okay then.
This legislation is purely performative.
This seems to be the crux of it:
> 2. If an interactive computer service provider restricts, censors, or suppresses information that does not pertain to obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable subject matter, the interactive computer service provider is liable in a civil action for damages to the person whose speech is restricted, censored, or suppressed, and to any person who reasonably otherwise would have received the writing, speech, or publication.
Later (6a) it seems to specify that it's
> material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable...
Soooo, what's the point of this? If I am a provider and I personally consider Trump to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable," then I can ban him without being affected by this bill, right? Does anyone think Twitter or FB or any of these groups banning Trump didn't find him objectionable?
Am I completely misreading this?