.... is that people will want to use it freely.
Have a quick shuftie through this article on 'section 230' of US law.
It's not even as simple as forcing big corps to be truthful: the probolem really lies at the heart of human nature, how we like to hear and believe things that reinforce our world view.
Politics. Anti-vaccine. Religious faith. Racial prejudice. Sports teams etc. You can probably add more with a few moments thought.
Ignoring the contradictions of that article and connections with business, I've been reading discussions between various people regarding politics in the light of the forthcoming election, and it's making many of the relatively toxic arguments I've seen in church look fairly mild. The problem of stuff being true 'if it's true for you' is self-evident and known to every schoolboy that ever had to deal with unkind rumours about themselves. But I'm seeing people who are intelligent, tactically clued up and highly motivated throwing points back & forth at each other.
The bit which bothers me - maybe it's the scientist in me - is that there's no interest in finding un-subjective truth. No desire to reach a place of common understanding from which to move forwards. If you can't belittle those you disagree with using factoids then attempt to humiliate them by suggesting public opinion is against them.
Welcome the Untied Kingdom, Great Brexan.
Guess I've reached the point of realising that people can't handle free speech, the only problem being who should decide what can & can't be said. Perhaps the Chinese aren't entirely wrong to suggest their citizens should each have a'social credit' system, other than the fact that (from a western perspecive) it's evil and oppressive.