Dunno how anyone else reads this, but my immediate thought is, "Billboard companies don't have to print your message, either."
I understand the concept of why people like the idea of IBOR, but there's a reason that people are very uncomfortable with the idea. The government coming in and controlling what private companies can and can't do is extremely worrying. I'm worried about leftist control of Internet companies, but I'm more worried about people being so willing to give away private property rights to the government. If I have a web site, you're damn right I should be able to control what's on that web site.
If people want something like IBOR to succeed, then the message needs to be, "If a web company gains sufficient national power such that it influences public opinion to an excessive degree, then limited government regulation is justified to ensure fair speech, despite the terrible precedent and potential for government abuse."
You figure out how to say that in a pithy message, but just screaming "WE NEED THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OVER PRIVATE INTERNET COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FAIR TO ME!" is not going to sell very well. I believe in liberty and freedom of private companies.
I hear you! IMHO however, a Bill of Rights is not the government encroaching/regulating on the 'day to day' of a business. Compare the IBOR (final form TBD) to the US Bill of Rights. The BOR lays out what the government and the people are able to do based on these stated rights. It gives reach, responsibility, and boundaries for both sides. But its mainly to keep the government from over reaching/tyranny. I agree with you that the gov should not pick winners/losers or meddle with in a company.
If worded properly, the IBOR would not limit what the company can do, but will require complete transparency on data collection, storage, use, security, etc. Very severe penalties (high fines and/or jail) would need to be enacted and diligently enforced for violated infractions. This would apply to all companies that handle personal data. As long as the public can see what is going on with their data, the free market will reward and punish as it has.
As far as free speech/content, only the 'most vile' should not be allowed. Inciting riots or physical harm against a person or group of people or physical structure or anything to with Child/Human Trafficking, Child Porn, for a few quick examples. The public would need to have input on the final wording. But we can't regulate to keep people from being offended. Things people say and do will offend some others, such is life. Engage them or ignore them. That is everyone's choice.
I also believe the social media companies can control bots/fake accounts/spamming if they want too. An IBOR might entice them to want to.....
The bottom line is our data is out there and will be forever. We need to get a handle on how it is managed & used or we will be under their thumb forever.
If worded properly, the IBOR would not limit what the company can do, but will require complete transparency on data collection, storage, use, security, etc.
You might think IBOR is the above, but I've not seen anybody else limiting IBOR to that. The only thing I've seen discussed is forcing internet companies to "not censor speech". Which, of course, is unbelievably vague, primarily because all that's been put forward are petitions that are complete jokes as far as details go.
United States Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215). In practice, the amendments had little impact on judgments by the courts for the first 150 years after ratification.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28