[elmerfud]

My real problem with this whole law is that it's a lame and run around that will be difficult to enforce. Sure it may be enforced on big personalities who have lots of followers who can then get cut off for curtailed but that does not help the average person.

Instead what they should have done is picked a reasonable size of active users or some other measure and instead of preventing banning of accounts or silencing the speech they should require that the company's policies must be cited in detail for their actions.

For example if Facebook decides that your post should be deleted it must send you the exact portion of their terms of service that you have violated and cite the specific examples of your post that violate those terms of service. There should also be a means of redress or correction available. This way we can see exactly how these companies are censoring people and what their logic and reasoning is and we can tell if that violates pre-existing rights of people. The exact same thing should apply to a ban they must site in detail the actions that you took and the policies that you violated instead of the nebulous violated our terms of service that we don't have to tell you why.

What people fail to understand is terms of service are not a blanket this company can do anything. Any terms of service that are against the law are meaningless such as provisions in a contract that violate the law those provisions hold no power. But when they enforce this they never tell you what you did or why you did it.

This law is just a joke typical paid politicians that are ignoring root problems.