The proposed Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act by Senators Warren and Graham seeks to create a new federal commission to regulate large tech platforms. However, the bill contains many problematic provisions that threaten free speech and internet freedom. It would require platforms to reveal content moderation policies, provide notice and appeals for all moderation decisions including spam, mitigate “emotional harms” without defining them, and even allow revoking operating licenses for “egregious misconduct.” Many organizations have endorsed the bill without carefully considering its negative impacts on free expression. In summary, while well-intentioned, the bill’s vague and overbroad regulations threaten to chill online speech rather than effectively protect consumers.
Better editorial and moderation transparency are good. I support that. I’m worried about the “mitigating emotional harm” part of the bill. This could mean that the fringes of society are allowed to use coded language and dog whistles but people aren’t allowed to call them out (for example). Information about transitioning could be deemed “emotionally harmful”. I’m skeptical about the government’s ability to define “emotionally harmful” content, especially in the current political climate. It seems too broad.
Yes, that makes sense. Thank you for elaborating. Still, at this point I am scared of both, the political bs and the megacorps running the show. Feels like the best solution is reform political system and have it reign in the corps.