Bill suspends social networks' Section 230 protections for anti-vax conspiracies

Sometimes the slope is slippery.

One thing I keep seeing is people that are ideologically opposed to restriction of speech keep getting caught up in a semantic argument about the rights of private companies- and fail to actually come up with a solution.

This far into the game, when the sitting White House press secretary goes on record stating that the current administration has been giving these social media companies guidelines and cues on what to clamp down on...we are so far past these arguments. And regulation/regulatory capture is not the solution. These exemptions are really just retroactive proposals to legalize what the big tech social media companies are already doing.

The bill ostensibly limits only misinformation concerning "public health emergencies." Last week, New York's Governor Cuomo declared gun violence a public health emergency. "Public health emergency" will be the new term of art for politicians seeking greater power than the "confines" of our Constitution allow.

This bill is trouble.

There is a vague sort-of exception to 1A around "false statements of fact":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

But even if that applies here, it would be constitutionally suspect to apply it to statements about just one particular topic.

Imagine a future presidential administration with a majority in Congress declaring that the current pronounced uptick in young people declaring themselves "non-binary" (or something similar) and seeking hormone replacement therapy is evidence of a mass hysteria and, as such, represents a public health emergency; and then using this Section 230 exception as a stick to bully social media companies to take down media hosted on their platforms that allegedly encourages this recent phenomenon.

"Misinformation" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why our Constitution declares that "Congress shall make no law."

My local health department advised folks who were non-symptomatic NOT to wear masks on the subway. Masks harm no one, and cost about $1 (for an N95). I wrote to ask if I would be arrested or forced to remove my mask. They said I would not be arrested, but to not follow misinformation and masks were not shown to reduce risk of Covid.

Yes, no study on COVID specially had been done, but COVID was a respitory disease so it made at least some possible sense that wearing a mask would reduce pathways in.

When I posted the question what's the harm in me wearing on of my masks an epidemiologist jumped in to correct my "misinformation" and cited everything from CDC to surgeon general to tell me my masks don't do anything yadda yadda.

My point was - even if you don't believe in masks - what harm (direct) to others am I causing by wearing a mask?

And the list goes on. In Santa Clara the health dept offical said don't need to wear a mask - then put her finger in her mouth to lick it to turn a page. Uhh, a mask would help remind you to maybe reduce sticking your finger in your mouth?

Instead of doing things like making more masks, sending 3 masks to every household (N95 not the silly little ones) we get these lectures and advise on "mininformation".

Then we are told that getting infected doesn't generate any immunity - in contrast to almost EVERY OTHER virus? Sure, we haven't shown that it does, but isn't it POSSIBLE that it does?

I've gotten tired of the claims of misinformation at this point.

My only request - allow businesses to mandate things like vaccinated status etc once fully FDA approved. We have to take into account all sorts of exceptions where I am including ADA stuff and religious beliefs which practically means those who don't want to get vaccinated can skip it (which increases risks significantly all around)