The issue with regulation in this space is that the arguments won't stop, and the free speech angle is the worst thing to address with this. Once we force providers over $x billion in revenue to conform their social media platforms to abide by US free speech standards, do they now have to divert to law enforcement before they can remove anything that might be considered illegal, or at least riot-inciting? Can they no longer ban bots if those bots are ran by a US citizen? Even if you do, and everyone's in agreement, you're effectively sanctioning off the social media sites to only allow posts from US nationals, unless there's some framework for allowing US free speech to proliferate alongside the strict antisemitic hate speech laws of Germany.
> do they now have to divert to law enforcement before they can remove anything that might be considered illegal, or at least riot-inciting
The courts have precedent that would cover this if online speech equals free speech. Part of the reason I want the government to assume responsibility is because it'll either force them to acknowledge they're the same or craft specific laws for online speech. Part of people's frustration is that the rules are all over the place.
> Even if you do, and everyone's in agreement, you're effectively sanctioning off the social media sites to only allow posts from US nationals
That's a silly conclusion. Do US companies only enforce US fraud or sanction laws despite operating in another country? The answer is no. There's regionalization baked into services operated on other regions. I've worked on such services.
Websites, as they globalize, have to do this with regular frequency.
