That would be a disaster because then anything the AIs or the people controlling them want us to forget, would indeed be forgotten.

It should not be opt-in. Reverse-chronological should be the only permissible way to operate. That way, when you know you've seen something before, you also know you've seen everything following it before and you can stop scrolling.

Nothing affects Freedom of Expression rights. I'm talking about regulating the business models of corporations, not censoring what people are allowed to say online.

The difference is that people who say inflammatory things online won't get the benefit of an "engagement"-based algorithm to boost their speech. And a right of "getting your expression boosted" is certainly not anywhere in the Constitution.

Drugs and booze typically are regulated, to some extent, even for adults.

And I'm not proposing completely banning social media. Just regulating it for everyone to make it less dangerous.

To use one of your analogies: We carefully regulate the purity and safety of over-the-counter drugs. We need to do the same for social media.

This is the wrong approach. Social media is just as dangerous for adults as it is for kids.

We need to ban the current social media business models for everyone. That means: No advertising allowed; only show content from people or groups you actually follow; show content strictly in descending chronological order; do not allow sponsored content; charge people to have an account (Facebook probably makes around $3-$5/month/user, so that's a good benchmark.)

Also: Any sort of age verification as described still gives sites an oracle to let them determine the likely age of a user. If you insist on preventing people from seeing content based on age, the decision must be made purely on the client side. That is, the client will pull down the content as usual, but just not show it. That way, the Web site has no oracle with which to determine the age of the user.

Well, yes. If you can prove intent or criminal negligence, there should be charges laid. But I'm not sure how easy it would be to prove either.

In the Olden Days, when a computer program misbehaved, we called it "buggy".

So... modern computer programs are buggy. What a shocker! The difference is we trust these buggy programs to run our lives to a far greater extent than before.

A small number (under 100) of bank accounts were temporarily frozen. No assets were confiscated/

Completely, 100%, absolutely false.

The bank accounts of some of the criminal convoy leaders were frozen. The bank accounts of individuals who donated to the criminal convoy were not touched whatsoever. The money in the frozen donation accounts was eventually returned to those who donated.

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to bring up the convoy criminals.

Believe me, the USA has far harsher sanctions for anyone who commits a crime. Look up "Civil Forfeiture", which is not nearly as easy to do in Canada.

Canada guarantees Freedom of Expression in our Constitution. While on paper, the USA has stronger guarantees, in practice, Canada has much more freedom (as measured, for example, by Freedom House.)

We don't have the equivalent of the FCC threatening broadcasters for which politicians they interview on TV, for example. We don't have governments dictating to librarians which books they are or are not allowed to stock. And we don't have governments banning universities from teaching certain subjects. You know... basic freedoms that you Americans used to take for granted?

Well, there's a clash of jurisdictions there. The UK is within its rights to punish Apple in the UK if it discloses information from the UK without permission. The US is also within its rights to punish Apple if it doesn't disclose the information, I suppose, but the US government can't really do anything directly against the UK and vice-versa.

I'm sure if the situation were reversed---if there was something the US government wanted kept secret that a foreign government wanted to know---the US would be quite comfortable ignoring the demands of the foreign government.

The UK can certainly regulate US company operations within the UK. It obviously can't regulate them outside the UK.

If the UK does decide to regulate US company operations within the UK, it doesn't have to agree to anything asked by US lawmakers because it's not their jurisdiction.

"As an investment banker, let me just say AI is great! Sure, it might displace some workers, but it has enormous profit potential and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.... what's that...? HEY! WAIT A MINUTE NOW!!!!"

You need to change the last line of your anthem.

"O'er the land of the serfs / And the home of the cowards."

Because nobody is meaningfully challenging the developing fascist autocracy.