There's no way the US government gets a say on what is allowed or what isn't allowed content wise with the first amendment as it is interpreted in the US.
So I've zero clue what Zuckerberg thinks is going to happen as far that goes.
So I've zero clue what Zuckerberg thinks is going to happen as far that goes.
The US government already has a say over that [0].
That's exactly what Senate hearings about "terrorist propaganda" and "election interference" on social media are all about [1], applying soft-power to send the message "You deal with this, or we will force you to deal with it", thus nudging these companies into self-regulation.
[0] http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/the-cleaners/
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17823280/facebook-twitter-...
That's not the same as law that makes it past a first amendment challenge.
All based on the patriot act which is still in effect to this day. That's the "beauty" about this: If you make the cause big enough, then barely anybody will mind the eroded civil rights. If you resist, you will be labeled an unpatriotic "terrorist sympathizer" who doesn't want to keep the country safe, a de-facto traitor to the cause.
[0] https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2017/11/nsa-internet-survei...
No matter how you frame this, these constitutional boundaries are not as high as many US Americans like to pretend. Because if those boundaries are not enforced, they ain't worth the paper they are written on, leaving the door wide open to further erode these constitutional rights.
[0] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
How do you think the 1st Amendment is interpreted that they don’t regulate speech of all kinds?
Defamatory speech, libelous speech, commercial speech, noise ordinances, permitting/zoning to limit when and where protests can be held, copyrights/trademarks, speech that interferes with government functions (ie burning drafts cards), advertising restrictions (no advertising tobacco/alcohol to children), regulation of speech of minors by schools and even child pornography are all government regulations of speech.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but if you're saying the first amendment is not some sort of absolute law, yes I know that.
It's interpretation in the US is still quite broad.
It’s probably the single most extreme example but consider the US drone bombing in Yemen to kill a US citizen...while we don’t know the basis of the decision, because the kill list and threshold to get put on said list is not disclosed, most legal scholars believe the basis for this incident are the deceased’s YouTube videos.