[brechin]

I see a lot of requests to label and possibly remove content, but I see no description of how social media companies were compelled to do so.

Is there any example of a social media company being impacted by refusing to comply with one of these requests?

[uLogMicheal]

https://youtu.be/6OYyXv2l4-I?feature=shared&t=53

How about this comment from Senate Majority leader Schumer?

This argument of "It's ok to meddle as long as you do not compel." is atrocious. People, especially those in high positions in social media companies, indeed fear government capability from many angles.

Regardless of the permission to meddle but not compel, why is the government paying for agents to act as moderators in the first place? Isn't there more important crime to allocate resources to?

[brechin]

So your argument is that it's coercion through implied threat, or that social media companies are so complicit that they will just do anything the "right" government official asks of them? Is that government censorship, or a problem of weak service operators?

I don't think there's a compelling case for government agents' top priority to be moderating online speech, but ensuring that the American people are not being subjected to massive mis/disinformation campaigns is a legitimate cause.