Whether or not the senators get what they want is another matter. Reuters noted that FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly saw “very complex issues” behind the order. He previously echoed beliefs that conservatives were being “stifled by liberal tech leaders,” but also said he was “extremely dedicated” to free speech rights. Chairman Pai said in 2018 that he didn’t see a role for the agency in regulating companies like Facebook or Twitter this way. Provided both officials hold to their positions, a review might fall short of the necessary support before it even starts.

As it stands, there are concerns that rethinking Section 230 would undermine the internet. Senator Ron Wyden, who co-authored Section 230, shared an editorial with CNN defending the spirit of the law. He argued that the section was designed to protect free speech as both a “sword and a shield.” It protected sites from liability for the actions of their users, but also gave them the power to delete “slime” like false claims and offensive material. He also contended that abolishing Section 230 would lead many sites to either over-moderate out of caution or not moderate at all, either silencing activists or leading to free-for-all toxic environments. Whether or not Wyden is right, his arguments as a co-creator of Section 230 may carry some weight in an FCC decision.

Politicians are seizing on Crew Dragon fervor to offer more incentives for private spaceflight. A group of US senators including Marco Rubio, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Cruz have put forward the American Space Commerce Act, a bill that would expand perks for companies like SpaceX. It would extend depreciation-related tax deductions by another 10 years to the start of 2033, and would make clear that incentives should go to spacecraft either launched from or “substantially manufactured” in the US.

There’s a House version of the bill (HR 6783). Not surprisingly, the bill has the backing of the companies it’s most likely to affect, including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing and United Launch Alliance.

TikTok allegedly asked its moderators to pull mentions of topics like the Tiananmen Square massacre, Tibet’s calls for independence and other content that challenges the Chinese government’s version of events. The service said it had retired the guidelines in May and that it had been using a “blunt approach” to minimizing drama on TikTok that included banning talk of all topics it deemed controversial, not just those from China.

An American TikTok spokeswoman talking to Reuters maintained that the Chinese government “does not request” censorship on its service. American data is stored in the US, she added, and China wouldn’t have jurisdiction over TikTok since it isn’t used there. Chinese residents instead use Douyin, a virtually identical app that is subject to Chinese censorship.

Whether or not there’s merit to the claims, Rubio has momentum on his side. The US just added eight Chinese tech companies to its Entity List over their help with China’s suppression of Muslim minorities. Moreover, Blizzard is facing a wave of criticism for banning an esports player that declared support for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests. Combine that with earlier actions against Huawei and ByteDance may face distrust even if its current practices are above-board.