No I think if you look at the democrats view points, especially Chuck Schumers on the issue of Facebook and Russian interference- their proposed regulations make a lot of sense. I'm pretty informed on the issue. The democrats clearly have the right ideas for regulating these large social media platforms...
Now should they consult experts? Sure maybe. But they definitely don't need to consult global economists.. This isn't an economic issue. This is an issue where Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is letting internet companies get away with not being responsible for content on their site.
In Facebooks case you could argue they are being slow to deal with hate content and misinformation. I think it's definitely important to pressure these companies with new laws to act on this kind of content. And it's not a political thing... No content should be available on Facebook that broadcasts a message of hate and chaos... Also any content misleading what a person or politician says vs what they actually said, IMO should be banned.. Twitter is taking a softer approach by labeling things a misinformation or not factual.. But I think we should take a step further.
Many people are being misled on the internet. Not good.
You're free to beleve everything you just said above. It's not factual though.
Now moving away from what you just said and towards the facts.
No politician from either side has the answer here. Because their main agenda is to keep getting elected each term. You need independant experts who's only agenda is the best outcomes for the people.
Also facebook is just like google (ie youtube) in being quick to "fact check" information from right wing sources but they let the left say whatever the left wants to. I'm not being biased here. I want both sides to be equally held to account. Facebook and google have zero want to hold both sides equally to account and only government regulation will force them to do this.
One major flaw in US society in general is most people trust a piece of information based on who the messenger was, not based on the message itself. If you like the messenger then it's fact. If you hate the messenger, then it's lies and hate. The actual message is not independantly scrutinised. The US ia a strongly partisan society and it's doing the country a lot of harm.
Also as an aside when you say
"Also any content misleading what a person or politician says vs what they actually said, IMO should be banned." I agree with you on this. However how do you determine what constitutes misleading? In many cases anything said by the side someone hates, is misleading, when in reality it's not. The public need to realise that factual information they do not like, the inconvenient truth, is the actual truth, regardless of who the messenger is.
Actually misleading content sould be banned, but there is not that many people in the US unbiased enough to make that determination. Ideally you'd choose a group entirely based outside the USA with zero skin in the game to make that determination. Because they pnly care for seeking out the truth, not perpetuating the US partisan society.
I can say I'm closer to this as I'm not a US citizen and I don't have any direct skin in the US game. An independant outside perspective is a good thing to have from time to time.