[rrook]

What about this is blatantly unconstitutional? The linked article isn't particularly specific, "countering misinformation" could mean replying to "misinformation" with debunking facts. Unless there's something else I'm missing, this seems like an overreaction.

[Cederfjard]

Disclaimer: I’m not an American, definitely not a lawyer.

But I agree with your take. The wording in the linked text makes it seem to have much more to do with counter-messaging than preventing or stifling speech in the first place.

[rubyist5eva]

The government cannot coerce you to message or "counter-message" one way or the other.

[Cederfjard]

No, I’m assuming this would be done by the company being paid to do so?

[rubyist5eva]

> "countering misinformation" could mean replying to "misinformation" with debunking facts.

Do you really think the US government should have the power to force you to "debunk" something? Do they decide what gets debunked and what does not?

[rrook]

> Do you really think the US government should have the power to force you to "debunk" something?

You're the only one suggesting that the government might be forcing anyone to do anything.

Calling this a blatant first amendment violation is an over the top knee-jerk reaction to the headline; it's a hot take that is completely unsubstantiated in the article itself.