4chan and 8chan are best known for hosting extreme content and hate speech, but both sites host posts by U.S. government officials and presidential campaigns that are sometimes indistinguishable from the content found on sites such as Facebook and Twitter. That's been a thorn in their side: In January, 8chan and the parent company of 4chan, Cloudflare, were sued by a victim of the 2017 attack in Las Vegas, where 59 people were killed and hundreds injured. Law enforcement and a host of celebrities — including the singer Ariana Grande — have also taken to Twitter in recent years to encourage users to stop using these sites. When the federal bill was introduced last month, I was contacted by multiple tech industry groups who were very worried that it would target social media sites, including 4chan, 8chan and others, for failing to abide by new "hate speech" rules. Even worse, the bill could be the first step toward the federal government taking a role in censoring online content. And that would be very bad for free speech in America. The bill — which is still going through Congress, and could change or be scrapped completely — suggests that politicians who are looking for ways to restrict online speech are just not seeing the bigger picture. Without an outright ban, the bill would require online platforms to more actively manage content on their sites, as well as establish some sort of process for users to appeal any action that's taken against them. This could include removing posts that are "threatening," "coarse" or "grossly offensive," and not allowing the use of obscene language. Even if the language is softened a bit — perhaps by requiring "coarse" or "grossly offensive" content to be removed when it's "specifically and directly related to inciting violence" — it's not clear what that might mean in practice. What is specifically and directly related to inciting violence? The bill also recommends the creation of a federal regulatory body with power to remove posts that fall under the new guidelines, which might be interpreted by future administrations as a dangerous power grab. More significantly, the bill would force the technology companies of today to adopt a role as a censor in a government-run Internet. The bill's authors, Representatives Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Michael Burgess (R-TX) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA), are looking for a quick fix. They claim that what makes the bill appealing is that they have a solution for one problem, not a series of problems. But their proposed solution will put more power in the hands of the government, and more power in the hands of politicians. In the short run, these bills aren't about free speech. They're about pandering to groups that would normally be unhappy with the social media companies they blame for problems like the terrorist attack in New Zealand, the anti-vaccine movement and other societal trends. (Facebook recently revealed that it removed nearly 1 million copies of the conspiracy video that likely played a role in the shooting.) This is an important moment for tech platforms and for the government. These bills are going to change the internet for good, and companies need to fight back — even if it's uncomfortable. If you like this story, check out my book, Internet Apocalypse, available now from Business Insider Press. More from Business Insider: