Algorithms can change though. An extreme and made up example might be that Facebook could publish their algorithms, then update them just prior to an election and not disclose that until afterwards due to needing administration time publishing that information.
Obviously I'm not suggesting this would happen in practice but my point is governments having a published document for tech algorithms is essentially meaningless in terms for protecting democracy (instead you'd need other controls in place). If anything, it just makes it even easier for governments to exploit technology for their own personal gain - which is more likely the reason why they want insider knowledge.
1/ You don't know "when" nor even "if" they have changed any algorithms. As I alluded to in my previous post, there is no real way you'd know they've changed their routines without them formally telling you. Thus you need other controls in place to manage this (such as regular independent audits - though even these can be useless if an organisation really wants to be deceptive)
2/ A lot of American businesses already run on the principle of "Ask for forgiveness not permission." In fact that saying is often regarded as an important key to success. Thus businesses frequently bend or even break the rules and then pay the fines afterwards (usually after much arguing though). So I cannot see a fine - not even a large one - as a strong enough incentive to keep them compliant. Maybe the threat of jail time might be a greater incentive but I'm still sceptical there when it's such an easy rule to break and a difficult one to prove
Right now there's zero insight but anecdotally I have been hearing from multiple content creators that they've reported huge engagement drops and their audience claim to be randomly unsubscribed and not see their content in the curated newsfeed.
I see this very often myself on Facebook. There are some politically oriented pages whose content I almost never see on my newsfeed, and I try to nudge the algorithm to change it by engaging with the posts directly on the page - still no luck. Meanwhile pages I am not interested in, liked by others, are able to show up frequently in my newsfeed.
So the general public sort of already knows if something shady is going on, particularly when it's blatant. Regulation just means they have to do something about it, to make it a fair platform or transparently unfair.
Nobody is forcing you to use FB or Google, and I have all their domains null routed at my firewall.
However, you do not get to use the government to force your preferred terms of doing business on them. That is the definition of authoritarian. It's akin to nationalizing a company's valuable assets.
Even China was able to just ban them (i.e. choose not to do business with them), and try to steal their tech instead. The US government will not stand for this intellectual property theft, even if it's done through legislation.
The US government has investigated things like Russian activity on social media and the media refers to it as "hacking the election". There was a whole Cambridge Analytica scandal about it.
If the dismissive view of "nobody forced those people to use social media" and "the government should not force preferred terms" arguments were generally favored then none of those incidents would have been treated the way they were.
It is already the mainstream view that that the US government play some role in "securing elections", which means ensuring that social media platforms are not "taken advantage of" by biased interests as they allegedly were in 2016.
You honestly do not have any knowledge of the Federalist Papers (they represent arguments supporting the Constitution), nor the Constitution itself.
I do not think you have the courage to make these claims in Denver, nor Farmington, NM. I will say what I'm saying IRL in either place (which is why I'm within HN guidelines). I'll pay for your ticket and pick you up at the ABQ (or DEN airport, with enough notice). America is about liberty, not race or anything else, We have the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world, from all countries. We do not care about "blood and soil" people.
Obviously I'm not suggesting this would happen in practice but my point is governments having a published document for tech algorithms is essentially meaningless in terms for protecting democracy (instead you'd need other controls in place). If anything, it just makes it even easier for governments to exploit technology for their own personal gain - which is more likely the reason why they want insider knowledge.