California Democrat Wants to Impose State-Approved Fact Checking on Websites

[dblack]

From SB-1424:

SECTION 1.
Title 14.5 (commencing with Section 3085) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:
TITLE 14.5. False Information Strategic Plans
3085.
(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.
(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.
(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.
(3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.
(4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.
(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

I don't know what regulatory or enforcement provisions or penalties would be included. I does seem like "the state" would have some kind of penal authority.

Yikes. We'll see.

Source: Bill Text - SB-1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.
.

Where?

This states that social media sites have to act with some civic responsibility... They have the same kind of laws for kiddy fuckers...

This is weak at best... All face book has to show is one guy saying he checking shit out...

This just says, stop working for the Russians...

You seriously don't have a problem with government deciding which news is fit to print?

 

[Mac1958]

No it doesn't say that.

Why write and pass a bill unless there will be authority to enforce it?
.

This is done all the time to encourage corporate responsibility... It is especially prevalent in IT where data is involved...

I actually know the law around data but I can tell you that a vast majority of IT professionals don't... This leads to cringe worthy moments...

This allows someone to stand up in a room in Facebook and say whats our policy if we are the avenue to undermine democracy in the USA.

Okay, encouragement is one thing. I'm all for corporate responsibility.

But why write and pass a bill if the state is not going to enforce it?
.

Cause there is a cyberwar on... Mac, you seem reasonable, why help the enemy...

Truth is Russia got away with it in 2016... And there seems next to nothing in place for 2018 and the have got better...

The other thing is North Korea, Iran, etc.... has seen the US weakness and know there is no blowback for exploiting America this way...

There has been a failure to instruct the Generals, they say they are trying to defend but the laws aren't up to date and they aren't allowed to play offence...

I'm not sure what you mean by "the enemy" - Other countries or the conservatives. Since I'm not ideological (which may be the cause of my being reasonable), I'm never quite sure on that.

I'm a freedom of expression purist, and I'm concerned any time there is a move to control it.

I'm not at all convinced that this is about national security, or just about national security. These are hyper-political times.
.

Mac,

I am talking about other countries or factions.... Not the conservatives who I believe the real ones are actually concerned about external interference in the election from other countries...

But the Russians just showed a blue print... Corporations could be doing this on individuals as well... No every Corporation is that ethical and imagine if a corporation could pollute a town and then construct online campaigns to vilify them so they can save money. This is trying to make that some what illegal, today it is legal.

I under stand your love for freedom of expression but unfortunately that has been heavily abused to the point that people are struggling to understand the truth (look at some of the polls) due information overload....

Something has to be done... I would welcome other suggestions as I don't like curbing freedom of expression either... But tidal wave of false information has got to the point where a large percentage of people consider info wars a credible source and CNN as the fake news... Actually one guy here yesterday said RT (Russian Television) was far better source than network tv or newspapers, seriously...

Asking for truth should be a corner stone of democracy...

I absolutely understand that, and this is one of those times where defending freedom of expression can be a ******* pain in the ass.

To me, this is a terribly complicated and asymmetrical issue. Let's remember that the genesis of the term "fake news" was the reaction to the right wing sites that were literally just making stuff up on the fly. Zero real "journalism". Their popularity was fueled by the talk radio fans comically overreacting to the general left-leaning bias of the media (something I agree with, by the way). And now, their comically, binary, hyper-partisan pathology has created, literally, alternate news universes. I get it.

The problem is, however, that the Left has a clear and recent history of shutting down and shouting down real opinions that dare to conflict with theirs. While they're far less likely to just make shit up, they are far more likely to want to control any speech that is contrary to their beliefs. Right or wrong, that's what I'm sniffing here. Therefore, it's authoritarianism vs. fake news. Asymmetrical.

So we have ourselves a real conundrum here. To your point, I'd like to see the nutters on both ends culturally marginalized (not by law or force) so that the public regularly and organically demands accuracy. Then, once that smoke has cleared, we'll be far more able to identify the bullshit that someone like Russia wants to throw into the mix.

This is a serious problem. But we have to be careful how we approach it. I don't like band-aids.
.

 

[Muhammed]

Gateway Pundit...

Lets just stop here.... It's bullshit unless we have a serious source....

You're an idiot.

 

[DarkFury]

From SB-1424:

SECTION 1.
Title 14.5 (commencing with Section 3085) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:
TITLE 14.5. False Information Strategic Plans
3085.
(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.
(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.
(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.
(3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.
(4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.
(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

On its face, it expects content providers to police themselves. I don't know what regulatory or enforcement provisions or penalties would be included. I does seem like "the state" would have some kind of penal authority, otherwise why write the bill?

Yikes. We'll see.

Source: Bill Text - SB-1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.
.

Section C is us!

 

[dudmuck]

This bill would likely be opposed by EFF and ACLU because this won't pass constitutional muster. Instead we should focus on teaching people critical thinking skills.

 

[Flash]

Another Liberal attack on free speech. They get to decide what the "facts" are.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gateway Pundit...

Lets just stop here.... It's bullshit unless we have a serious source....

You're an idiot.

The idiot pretty much is doing what the loon in California wants to do.

 

[CowboyTed]

Where?

This states that social media sites have to act with some civic responsibility... They have the same kind of laws for kiddy fuckers...

This is weak at best... All face book has to show is one guy saying he checking shit out...

This just says, stop working for the Russians...

No it doesn't say that.

Why write and pass a bill unless there will be authority to enforce it?
.

This is done all the time to encourage corporate responsibility... It is especially prevalent in IT where data is involved...

I actually know the law around data but I can tell you that a vast majority of IT professionals don't... This leads to cringe worthy moments...

This allows someone to stand up in a room in Facebook and say whats our policy if we are the avenue to undermine democracy in the USA.

Okay, encouragement is one thing. I'm all for corporate responsibility.

But why write and pass a bill if the state is not going to enforce it?
.

Cause there is a cyberwar on... Mac, you seem reasonable, why help the enemy...

Truth is Russia got away with it in 2016... And there seems next to nothing in place for 2018 and the have got better...

The other thing is North Korea, Iran, etc.... has seen the US weakness and know there is no blowback for exploiting America this way...

There has been a failure to instruct the Generals, they say they are trying to defend but the laws aren't up to date and they aren't allowed to play offence...

like 8 years of exploiting obama? hell he sent them billions in the night on a pallet or 2. that type of exploiting is still going on?

quit trying to paint things you don't like as something no one should. your just not that important in all this. none of us are. but all this bullshit of my side right, your side wrong, watch me make up shit to support it? gee, where did fake news come from again? us, then google, and now here to today. if we didn't need fake news so bad to support our emotional insecurities, we'd not have fake news now would we?

Gateway Pundit...

Again, the narrative as usual is bullshit... Where in the bill does it state 'State sanctioned fact checkers'....

Lets help, it doesn't but this OP figures that the army of Alt Right will fill this thread up with there usual back me up bullshit...

Truth is the casualty

What happens if the fact checker doesn't work the way the state wants it to work? Anyone can set up a web page and call themselves a fact checker. As usual, we have to look at the ultimate intent. Obviously, the state is going to see things published that it considers false and will ultimately have to approve the fact checkers involved. Sure, the bill doesn't say, "state approved fact checkers". It doesn't have to.

This is just a first step. They need to first get a law on the books that gives the state authority over published web content.

You are starting saying we would like have the intention to distribute lies.... The proposed law states that procedures are in place to identify and deal with the distribution of false information... I am pretty sure that other media organisations have to show this structure as well...

Let me explain something to you... When you post in Facebook (in the US) you don't own the information, Facebook does and it is them who are distribute it...

You can't knowingly in a Newspaper print lies:
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that when a publication involves a public figure, to support a suit for libel the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the publisher acted with actual malice: knew of the inaccuracy of the statement or acted with reckless disregard of its truth.

So why is Facebook allowed to have a reckless disregard of its truth...

By the way I don't think Facebook has too much trouble with this...

 

[CowboyTed]

Gateway Pundit...

Lets just stop here.... It's bullshit unless we have a serious source....

You're an idiot.

The idiot pretty much is doing what the loon in California wants to do.

Gateway Pundit...

Lets just stop here.... It's bullshit unless we have a serious source....

You're an idiot.

The idiot pretty much is doing what the loon in California wants to do.

Sorry lads... But I showed the headline was false....

Thanks for the name calling but when you decent to that behaviour you really show more of why kind of people you are and not who I am...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Far-left California state senator Richard Pan wants to force all websites to submit to state-approved fact checking

Pan recently introduced legislation to crack down on free speech on the internet.

Pan’s legislation would force online publishers to utilize state-sanctioned fact checkers to approve content before it is posted online.

It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication. (It Begins: California Senator Introduces Bill to Kill Free Speech, Requires State-Sanctioned Fact Checkers to Approve Online Content)​

Even if the bill "only" targeted social media, it would still be thoroughly fascist and anti-American. Th

yes it doesnt take long for the leftists to attack other rights

 

[miketx]

Gateway Pundit...

Lets just stop here.... It's bullshit unless we have a serious source....

Always the same with you thugs.

 

[dblack]

Sorry lads... But I showed the headline was false....

I must have missed that. I saw you ask for links. They were provided. Actually, they were there, in the OP - which you apparently didn't read. All you've shown in this thread is tacit support for authoritarian government. "Nothing to see here, move along..."

 

[CowboyTed]

This is done all the time to encourage corporate responsibility... It is especially prevalent in IT where data is involved...

I actually know the law around data but I can tell you that a vast majority of IT professionals don't... This leads to cringe worthy moments...

This allows someone to stand up in a room in Facebook and say whats our policy if we are the avenue to undermine democracy in the USA.

Okay, encouragement is one thing. I'm all for corporate responsibility.

But why write and pass a bill if the state is not going to enforce it?
.

Cause there is a cyberwar on... Mac, you seem reasonable, why help the enemy...

Truth is Russia got away with it in 2016... And there seems next to nothing in place for 2018 and the have got better...

The other thing is North Korea, Iran, etc.... has seen the US weakness and know there is no blowback for exploiting America this way...

There has been a failure to instruct the Generals, they say they are trying to defend but the laws aren't up to date and they aren't allowed to play offence...

I'm not sure what you mean by "the enemy" - Other countries or the conservatives. Since I'm not ideological (which may be the cause of my being reasonable), I'm never quite sure on that.

I'm a freedom of expression purist, and I'm concerned any time there is a move to control it.

I'm not at all convinced that this is about national security, or just about national security. These are hyper-political times.
.

Mac,

I am talking about other countries or factions.... Not the conservatives who I believe the real ones are actually concerned about external interference in the election from other countries...

But the Russians just showed a blue print... Corporations could be doing this on individuals as well... No every Corporation is that ethical and imagine if a corporation could pollute a town and then construct online campaigns to vilify them so they can save money. This is trying to make that some what illegal, today it is legal.

I under stand your love for freedom of expression but unfortunately that has been heavily abused to the point that people are struggling to understand the truth (look at some of the polls) due information overload....

Something has to be done... I would welcome other suggestions as I don't like curbing freedom of expression either... But tidal wave of false information has got to the point where a large percentage of people consider info wars a credible source and CNN as the fake news... Actually one guy here yesterday said RT (Russian Television) was far better source than network tv or newspapers, seriously...

Asking for truth should be a corner stone of democracy...

I absolutely understand that, and this is one of those times where defending freedom of expression can be a ******* pain in the ass.

To me, this is a terribly complicated and asymmetrical issue. Let's remember that the genesis of the term "fake news" was the reaction to the right wing sites that were literally just making stuff up on the fly. Zero real "journalism". Their popularity was fueled by the talk radio fans comically overreacting to the general left-leaning bias of the media (something I agree with, by the way). And now, their comically, binary, hyper-partisan pathology has created, literally, alternate news universes. I get it.

The problem is, however, that the Left has a clear and recent history of shutting down and shouting down real opinions that dare to conflict with theirs. While they're far less likely to just make shit up, they are far more likely to want to control any speech that is contrary to their beliefs. Right or wrong, that's what I'm sniffing here. Therefore, it's authoritarianism vs. fake news. Asymmetrical.

So we have ourselves a real conundrum here. To your point, I'd like to see the nutters on both ends culturally marginalized (not by law or force) so that the public regularly and organically demands accuracy. Then, once that smoke has cleared, we'll be far more able to identify the bullshit that someone like Russia wants to throw into the mix.

This is a serious problem. But we have to be careful how we approach it. I don't like band-aids.
.

I agree with a lot you say there... Both sides have got on there war paint... I probably be a bit center-left myself but have face palm moments with some of the left too.. The whole thing is so tribal now... I am just thinking Republicans are little worse than Democrats but there is two of them.... Neither are Conservatives or Liberals.
While Trump is not a Conservative except for two things, he throws them a bone (Supreme Court Justice) and he pisses off Liberals... Anything but unquestioned loyalty to the Trump means you are either establishment RINO or worse a Commie...

Democrats have a whiter than white, all or nothing view... You must be politically correct at all times and any sign of perceived insult could be death...

I think Democrats are less infected and can see compromise quicker, Conor Lamb... While I just Moore on the GOP side....

The biggest problem in my view is the method of election... IT is built to run to bases rather than the middle... One man, one vote does that and is why it has been generally dumped by almost every other country...

 

[Silhouette]

From SB-1424:

SECTION 1.
Title 14.5 (commencing with Section 3085) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:
TITLE 14.5. False Information Strategic Plans
3085.
(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.
(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.
(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.
(3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.
(4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.
(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

On its face, it expects content providers to police themselves. I don't know what regulatory or enforcement provisions or penalties would be included. I does seem like "the state" would have some kind of penal authority, otherwise why write the bill?

Yikes. We'll see.

Source: Bill Text - SB-1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.
.

Then I guess Stanford's child drugging tranny program would have to shut its doors online since they claim their program can actually change the gender of a child. This knife can cut both ways. It's like a pathological liar insisting that lies become illegal.

 

[hadit]

No it doesn't say that.

Why write and pass a bill unless there will be authority to enforce it?
.

This is done all the time to encourage corporate responsibility... It is especially prevalent in IT where data is involved...

I actually know the law around data but I can tell you that a vast majority of IT professionals don't... This leads to cringe worthy moments...

This allows someone to stand up in a room in Facebook and say whats our policy if we are the avenue to undermine democracy in the USA.

Okay, encouragement is one thing. I'm all for corporate responsibility.

But why write and pass a bill if the state is not going to enforce it?
.

Cause there is a cyberwar on... Mac, you seem reasonable, why help the enemy...

Truth is Russia got away with it in 2016... And there seems next to nothing in place for 2018 and the have got better...

The other thing is North Korea, Iran, etc.... has seen the US weakness and know there is no blowback for exploiting America this way...

There has been a failure to instruct the Generals, they say they are trying to defend but the laws aren't up to date and they aren't allowed to play offence...

like 8 years of exploiting obama? hell he sent them billions in the night on a pallet or 2. that type of exploiting is still going on?

quit trying to paint things you don't like as something no one should. your just not that important in all this. none of us are. but all this bullshit of my side right, your side wrong, watch me make up shit to support it? gee, where did fake news come from again? us, then google, and now here to today. if we didn't need fake news so bad to support our emotional insecurities, we'd not have fake news now would we?

Gateway Pundit...

Again, the narrative as usual is bullshit... Where in the bill does it state 'State sanctioned fact checkers'....

Lets help, it doesn't but this OP figures that the army of Alt Right will fill this thread up with there usual back me up bullshit...

Truth is the casualty

What happens if the fact checker doesn't work the way the state wants it to work? Anyone can set up a web page and call themselves a fact checker. As usual, we have to look at the ultimate intent. Obviously, the state is going to see things published that it considers false and will ultimately have to approve the fact checkers involved. Sure, the bill doesn't say, "state approved fact checkers". It doesn't have to.

This is just a first step. They need to first get a law on the books that gives the state authority over published web content.

You are starting saying we would like have the intention to distribute lies.... The proposed law states that procedures are in place to identify and deal with the distribution of false information... I am pretty sure that other media organisations have to show this structure as well...

Let me explain something to you... When you post in Facebook (in the US) you don't own the information, Facebook does and it is them who are distribute it...

You can't knowingly in a Newspaper print lies:
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that when a publication involves a public figure, to support a suit for libel the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the publisher acted with actual malice: knew of the inaccuracy of the statement or acted with reckless disregard of its truth.

So why is Facebook allowed to have a reckless disregard of its truth...

By the way I don't think Facebook has too much trouble with this...

A civil lawsuit in which a person sues for defamation of character or libel is different from the government using the force of law to compel a publication to either publish or not publish something. That's why the government does not step in to force Facebook, for example, to retract or publish anything, and it should not do so.

 

[Silhouette]

If the state isn't going to enforce the rules, why have the rules?

To scare people into silence using a laughably unconstitutional bluff. The aim is to reduce web traffic opposing the cult of LGBT. Kind of like a Scientology "audit" move.

 

[hadit]

Sorry lads... But I showed the headline was false....

I must have missed that. I saw you ask for links. They were provided. Actually, they were there, in the OP - which you apparently didn't read. All you've shown in this thread is tacit support for authoritarian government. "Nothing to see here, move along..."

No one wants news outlets to deliberately further an agenda through dishonesty, but we even more do not want the government to have the power to decide what is and is not permissable to publish. At some point, consumers of the news have to take responsibility to find the truth.

 

[dblack]

The biggest problem in my view is the method of election... IT is built to run to bases rather than the middle... One man, one vote does that and is why it has been generally dumped by almost every other country...

* WINNER *

Couldn't agree more. That's why most of my political energy (in real life) is dedicated to the FairVote movement.

 

[CowboyTed]

Sorry lads... But I showed the headline was false....

I must have missed that. I saw you ask for links. They were provided. Actually, they were there, in the OP - which you apparently didn't read. All you've shown in this thread is tacit support for authoritarian government. "Nothing to see here, move along..."

State-Approved Fact Checking

Where is that in the bill?

 

[dblack]

Sorry lads... But I showed the headline was false....

I must have missed that. I saw you ask for links. They were provided. Actually, they were there, in the OP - which you apparently didn't read. All you've shown in this thread is tacit support for authoritarian government. "Nothing to see here, move along..."

State-Approved Fact Checking

Where is that in the bill?

The bill requires media outlets to use, among other things, 'fact-checkers'. Do you think there will be no rules regarding what qualifies as 'fact checking'? Have you ever known ANY law to function that way?