Unfortunately with such a tax you would also punish businesses doing digital advertising in a healthy manner (not everyone is out there building a reckless engagement maximization machine while completely disregarding ethics).
Many people and businesses monetize their online properties without letting advertisers dictate what kind of content they produce. For example, the traffic of unregistered people is monetized using advertising but they then have membership plans.
Because the best interests of the current platforms aren't aligned with the best interests of consumers, while with this system consumers are in charge and therefore will pursue their best interest.
To understand this, just ask yourself the following question: if you were a SaaS company operating in this space, how would you market your algorithms to attract customers?
Answer: By telling people (and therefore putting yourself in a position to be able to say it) that your algorithms are not toxic, do not promote fake news, etc... You can also offer algorithms doing exactly the opposite at the same time. The point is that the result will be that consumers will have a catalog of choices in front of them and will be able to decide, instead of being manipulated without being aware of it. This alone is a huge difference.
And it has been demonstrated (for example with the Apple do not track option), that when given the choice, people will default to the healthy option (and may occasionaly venture outside of it, out of curiosity or fun).
Actually YouTube will be able to survive, for example by opening up their platform and API to allow users to bring their own discovery and recommendation engines. An ecosystem of SaaS enabling users to no-code build their own engine, or one click-install open-source ones will here be enabled. And since the goal of users is not to maximize engagement but to protect their health and find interesting content, this will not lead us back to the current state of affairs. Very few people will choose toxic algorithms, and at the very least people will now have choice.
YouTube would still be able to sell ads, but it will be the dumb pipe it was always supposed to be under section 230. This will be a much healthier situation with many regards.
I think the key thing is to stop considering that the current status quo is the golden age: there is so much abuse everywhere from misinformation and manipulation to wall gardens and monopolies, but somehow we've rationalized it and accepted it as a fact of life. What this law will do, is introduce some much needed rule of law in the digital landscape, and I believe create a healthier and even more competitive landscape.
I find this article unconvincing, in that it looks at this issue through the usual bias and superiority complex of HN folks.
Politicians no longer want any company to be able to mass manipulate their constituents. The fact that operating a platform at scale relying on user submitted content would be impossible with this bill is precisely the outcome being sought. This requires tech companies to either change their business model or take editorial responsibility for the content promoted on their platform.
I actually find this bill clever and elegant since it excludes search engines, discussion boards and more. Yes certain business models and startup dreams relying on making algorithmic recommendations without being accountable for the outcomes on individuals and society will die, but is this really a bad thing?
To me this is a total positive, there are still plenty of opportunities to build large scale platforms with the web. Simply moving forward, this will require bringing more value to the table rather than just putting people in a walled garden and making money by poisoning their mind and society at the same time.
Many people and businesses monetize their online properties without letting advertisers dictate what kind of content they produce. For example, the traffic of unregistered people is monetized using advertising but they then have membership plans.