We'll see if it helps stop the blatant partisanship or not.
AFAICT Republicans who tend to call for mandated content neutrality (protecting users by their political ideas) are ignoring the fact that there are multiple dimensions of TOS violations. If FB, Twitter, et al banned a famous person allegedly because they are a Republican, does this law also prevent the same platform from banning the same user for their calls for violence?
I’ve worked at a large social media company (one most people would not recognize). The loud users that get banned almost always play up the “I didn’t do anything wrong” card but the moderation department has the evidence that they very blatantly did violate the objective standards of the site. The problem is that the public doesn’t see the evidence that the moderation department does, so they are outraged after only looking at half of a ledger.
Let the judge decide... A company of that size should be stripped of that power
On the other hand, freedom of association didn't stop the civil rights act.
But freedom of association is less clearly defined in the constitution. Maybe a better example are the many regulations on commercial speech that exist despite the 1st amendment.
Yes, "conservative" accounts get banned more often than "progressive" ones. Or, at least, that's how it may appear if your definition of "conservative" is dominated by racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia. Which isn't entirely wrong, obviously: traditionally, the ideology that despised all deviations from the norm just came with a different label, fascism.