Respectfully, I don't share things I haven't read, so accusation aside...
I don't agree with your interpretation of the bill...it is an extreme take that misses the point of some of the more specific details...I would imply that you didn't read the bill, but that would be rude. So...
1. The bill makes no mention nor does it imply a goal to censor the entire Internet. That is a rhetoric claim.
2. Your comment that X would be forced to remove a person's opinion on a subject is speculative, no evidence of this.
3. The bill says AI chatbots must reduce harmful behaviours such as encouraging self-harm (nothing about requiring AI chatbots to contradict opinions).
4. Platform moderation and Internet censorship are not the same thing (the former being a long-standing part of Internet platform rules).
I think it's best to discuss what the bill actually says vs what it might become.
But even more importantly, my tweet was suggesting that we listen to parents, doctors, teachers, etc. who are on the front lines of this social media nightmare.
And finally, generally speaking, I'm happy we can have these discussions and I agree that we should debate and discuss many of these issues.
Have a good night.
Did you read the column? Something tells me you didn’t.