> EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously

Credit where it’s due, but I doubt that ICEBlock was the first thing Ted Cruz wanted to benefit from this bill

Apparently they missed Ron Wyden (co-sponsor) of the bill is a Democrat and the bill is a bi-partisan effort?

Or the fact the EFF is actually in support of the bill:

EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through the process. We hope it lands on the right balance to provide additional protections for everyday users around freedom of expression.

Square this circle:

1) Big Social Media firms have to make decisions on speech.

2) The ideals of free speech that everyone espouses are from an era where publishing and control of publishing was nascent.

3) As businesses, it is their job to ensure they take care of their shareholders, and thus this means driving engagement.

4) As humans, we respond and engage with certain stimului more actively than others.

5) As of 2026, moderation is still value driven. Private entities must now what is fair speech and moderate according to their values.

6) Platforms, following the incentives that are set out for them, create environments that are as addictive as possible for its users. This is what their job is.

You can make small enclaves for long form content. However, the majority of the voting population is drugged to the gills with enrapturing content.

This is not a recipie for a healthy information economy, this is the opium wars being waged by our own business structures on our own people - a druggie information economy.

Giving governments more power is ... oof... a bad idea. We need more genuine efforts to ensure a healthier content environment that works for society.

Do note, that while US based commenters are concerned, the situation is even worse in other nations, given that Authoritarianism is on an upswing. Figuring this out is not a trivial philosophical issue.

On the not so bright side: this is literally KGB textbook 101. Yuri explained this in the 1980s already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk

Ultimtately, though, while the billionaires running the show are ruthless, their puppets in the current administration are really so incompetent that they will literally ruin everything, including their own corrupt ambitions.

> After earlier stating he first ran for Congress in 2012 “with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate,”

Texas has laws that government contractors must promise not to boycott the state of Israel [2]. 35+ US states have similar laws [3]. This on its face seems like a government restriction on speech, squarely violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, who otherwise love to pay lip service to the First Amendment, go out of their way to avoid anti-BDS challenges [4]. Courts have generally split hairs here saying anti-BDS impacts commerce and is speec-neutral. That's a complete cop out.

So do I think that Ted Cruz really cares about free speech? Not for a second. I suspect that if this passes, it'll only ever be applied in cases where governments officials attack conservative misinformation (eg stolen elections, anti-vaxxer anything). Any speech contradicting US foreign policy will be labelled as domestic terrorism so First Amendment freedoms don't seem to apply (I suspect).

US tech platforms already have incredible conservative bias. Meta's policy chief, Jordana Cutler (who worked in Benjamin Netanyahu's office), boasts about taking down pro-Palestinian content [5]. Twitter is a Nazi shithole [6]. And worse [7]. The whole manosphere, which is an alt-right entry point, flourishes on every platform.

So, no, I have no confidence in anything Ted Cruz supports.

[1]: https://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-cites-genesis-12...

[2]: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/anti-israel-policies-are-ant...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

[4]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-declines-t...

[5]: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...

[6]: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-mus...

[7]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/27/twitter-...

Now you can argue that the right way to counter misinformation is by countering it with legit information, and that's certainly a valid argument.

But that idealistic approach quickly runs into a wall. As Bill Gates said on Oprah's show, "We were a bit naive: we thought the internet, with the availability of information, would make us all a lot more factual. The fact that people would seek out—kind of a niche of misinformation—we were a bit naive."

So yes, people seek out misinformation, because of some inherent belief that there is a vast conspiracy going on that they aren't aware of, and the more conspiratorial some news sounds, the more likely they are to believe it. So you can't necessarily fight misinformation with legit information, unfortunately. As a result, a public health crisis is likely if social media companies do nothing to control the spread of misinformation.