So, when I was worried about Facebook censoring speech, I was told "well, this is a private company, you don't like these policies, you can make your speech somewhere else". Now what Zuckerberg is proposing is: "Internet companies should be accountable for enforcing standards on harmful content.". This means no company can host anything government decided is "hate speech". And if you think he just aims for voluntary compliance - no, "Regulation could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum." Regulation means government setting what "harmful content" is, and forcing platforms to remove it. And yes, "hate speech" is very much included. Moreover, the providers should be mandated to report to the government how efficient they are in suppressing speech: "Facebook already publishes transparency reports on how effectively we’re removing harmful content. I believe every major Internet service should do this quarterly, because it’s just as important as financial reporting."
Anybody wants to tell me I am still too paranoid when I think Zuckerberg and likes want to destroy free speech on the internet and turn it into a platform controlled and policed by major providers, where speech not approved by them and the government would be suppressed? That article certainly confirms every suspicion I had.
It's no longer "you don't like FB censorship, find yourself another platform". It's "now that we built censorship in FB, look how nice it is - why not have the government use it as a model to impose it on the rest of the internet?"