I thought Dems were supposed to champion free speech

[bernorange 8348]

Apparently not:

Quote

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

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

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.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1424

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Pardon me if I'm not immediately outraged but how exactly is free speech being suppressed? 

Not saying it isn't but what speech would be suppressed by the State? 

[RomaVicta 29769]

Every Dem in the country had a hand in writing and supporting that bill. They're evil, I tell you! EVIL! 

Filled with hypocrisy and E.V.I.L.!!!!!!!!!   SAD

[jimmyjazz 45538]

So all Democrats support this bill?  I didn't know that.  Thanks for the information.

[RomaVicta 29769]

You're welcome, Mr. Jazz.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by RomaVicta

[jimmyjazz 45538]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pardon me if I'm not immediately outraged but how exactly is free speech being suppressed? 

Not saying it isn't but what speech would be suppressed by the State? 

It appears to go beyond any restrictions currently placed on the press (freedom of which is analogous to freedom of speech).  To my knowledge, restrictions on freedom of the press are punitive -- i.e., after the fact (libel,  etc.).

[jimmyjazz 45538]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

You're welcome, Mr. Jazz.

 

LOL . . . you beat me to the finish line by a nose.  (Wasn't responding to you, as you seem to be aware.)

[David Dennison 18646]

Speech in this country has always been and always will be regulated. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by David Dennison

[bernorange 8348]

@Hugo Stiglitz - Think it through.  Don't just focus on the obvious intent of the bill.  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hint: Consider how this law might be applied to site that advocates for a controversial issue where facts are in dispute.  Consider how it might be applied where issues are presented that are in opposition to the decrees of the Ministry of Truth.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It appears to go beyond any restrictions currently placed on the press (freedom of which is analogous to freedom of speech).  To my knowledge, restrictions on freedom of the press are punitive -- i.e., after the fact (libel,  etc.).

No I don't think so. It looks like this is an attempt to mandate by legislation what is already being done by companies like Facebook (i.e. deleting posts that link to fake news and/or troll sites). This appears to apply to content after it is shared, so I think your interpretation is wrong. In no way does this restrict an individual's right to post whatever bullshit they want.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Is there something tying this bill to Democrats beyond it being introduced by a single Democrat on the state level?   If not, you're doing a disservice to your position and your credibility by turning it into a weak partisan hot take.

[formermav43 4599]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Is there something tying this bill to Democrats beyond it being introduced by a single Democrat on the state level?   If not, you're doing a disservice to your position and your credibility by turning it into a weak partisan hot take.

I tend to agree. Seems unlike bern, that’s not his usual style.

It also has the side effect of producing responses that are defenses of the Dems instead of actually discussing the bill.

Edited April 16, 2018 by formermav43

[bolverk 29394]

At least one part of this goes to the issue of whether social media sites are platforms or publishers. This would seem to argue they are the latter and are therefore the responsible for all content on the site.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

27 minutes ago, bernorange said:

@Hugo Stiglitz - Think it through.  Don't just focus on the obvious intent of the bill.  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hint: Consider how this law might be applied to site that advocates for a controversial issue where facts are in dispute.  Consider how it might be applied where issues are presented that are in opposition to the decrees of the Ministry of Truth.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this yet. 

I don't think there should be a state run "Ministry of Truth" or anyone's speech suppressed. 

I'm not sure how this bill approaches either because it's really just asking/requiring social media platforms to be more vigilant about the spread of false information but I see your point that it's a slippery slop.

Flat earthers are probably not in favor of this type of legislation.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bernorange 8348]

Golly, Dems on Surly sure are sensitive.  The thread title was not an indictment of all Dems.  It was expressing my surprise that a Dem (any Dem) would champion a bill that is anathema to free speech (which is purportedly a "Dem issue").  Sorry it seems to have detracted from focus on the bill itself.

@Brian Fantana - Who is the final arbiter of whether the owner of a site has vetted facts?  Who is deciding which facts are facts?  It's fine when a private entity decides to enforce their own criteria/guidelines for the use of their property, it's a whole different issue when Govco mandates compliance with the Ministry of Truth.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Please.   If you regret the title, fine, just say that and move on.   But claiming that you weren't trying to indict Dems more broadly by saying  "I thought Dems were supposed to champion free speech, apparently not," is complete bullshit. 

[Sawbonz 27392]

58 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So all Democrats support this bill?  I didn't know that.  Thanks for the information.

We can’t tar with broad brushes here?  CR posts are going to drop by 90%

[bolverk 29394]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Golly, Dems on Surly sure are sensitive.  The thread title was not an indictment of all Dems.  It was expressing my surprise that a Dem (any Dem) would champion a bill that is anathema to free speech (which is purportedly a "Dem issue").  Sorry it seems to have detracted from focus on the bill itself.

@Brian Fantana - Who is the final arbiter of whether the owner of a site has vetted facts?  Who is deciding which facts are facts?  It's fine when a private entity decides to enforce their own criteria/guidelines for the use of their property, it's a whole different issue when Govco mandates compliance with the Ministry of Truth.

By my reading of the text, it's asking the websites to determine what "facts are facts" themselves.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We can’t tar with broad brushes here?  CR posts are going to drop by 90%

We can, it just leads to superficial partisan bickering.   Bernorange is usually a serious poster who gets serious discussion on his threads.   Start a Swam thread, get Swam replies.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Just now, bernorange said:

Golly, Dems on Surly sure are sensitive.  The thread title was not an indictment of all Dems.  It was expressing my surprise that a Dem (any Dem) would champion a bill that is anathema to free speech (which is purportedly a "Dem issue").  Sorry it seems to have detracted from focus on the bill itself.

@Brian Fantana - Who is the final arbiter of whether the owner of a site has vetted facts?  Who is deciding which facts are facts?  It's fine when a private entity decides to enforce their own criteria/guidelines for the use of their property, it's a whole different issue when Govco mandates compliance with the Ministry of Truth.

Oh come off it with your bullshit, pussy fucking gaslighting. You were trying to troll with your thread title and got called on it. Don't be a coward, just admit it, no one really cares either way.

The bill is specifically calling for companies to create their own internal strategy for vetting, specifically, news stories shared on their platforms. The bolded part is important, because it doesn't mean they're going to delete your posts if you log on and post that the sky is green. Facebook already started doing this. They simply delete posts that link to falsified news stories. This bill wants other companies to do the same. I don't think that's unreasonable.

None of this is, in any way, an infringement on freedom of speech. So you can fuck right off with that line of bullshit.

 

[bernorange 8348]

@Mojo Hand - I think the issue is that you, et. al., are interpreting my comments as if I were a political partisan.  You are trapped in the mindset that you are projecting on me.  I erred in using ambiguous language.  If a Pub pushed a bill to legalize gay marriage, and someone created a thread stating, "I thought Pubs were against gay marriage; apparently not" it would be the same thing.  It's not a statement addressing all Pubs.  Just the one Pub who isn't in keeping with Pub character/stereotype.

Any thoughts on the bill itself?

[bernorange 8348]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

By my reading of the text, it's asking the websites to determine what "facts are facts" themselves.

Yes.  Now, think through the next step.  How is the State determining compliance with this law?

[Viper 12018]

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

The bill is specifically calling for companies to create their own internal strategy for vetting, specifically, news stories shared on their platforms.

and if they don't?

[Brian Fantana 6667]

1 minute ago, Viper said:

and if they don't?

No idea. I don't think the bill is a good idea, but it's not an infringement on freedom of speech, as the OP is implying.

[bernorange 8348]

@Brian Fantana - Were you even around on the Shag, bro?  You seem really angry and ignorant of who I am and my idiom.  I apologize for causing confusion with the thread title that could be misinterpreted as CR partisan asshattery.  That wasn't my intent, but if you can't accept that, that's on you.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Just now, bernorange said:

@Brian Fantana - Were you even around on the Shag, bro?  You seem really angry and ignorant of who I am and my idiom.  I apologize for causing confusion with the thread title that could be misinterpreted as CR partisan asshattery.  That wasn't my intent, but if you can't accept that, that's on you.

I really don't care "who you are". This thread is swam-level garbage.

[F250 28674]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We can’t tar with broad brushes here?  CR posts are going to drop by 90%

All Republicans are crypto fascists.

All Libertarians want to convert the poor into soylent green.

All green party members are Russian patsies.

Democrats are a menagerie of reasonable political actors.

 

 

[bolverk 29394]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Yes.  Now, think through the next step.  How is the State determining compliance with this law?

The bill doesn't say. And right now, it seems completely agnostic as to what truth is (as determined by the website).

[DanRydell 799]

This is a terrible bill. I'm not certain it violates the First Amendment but if not, it comes damn close

 

[bernorange 8348]

@bolverk - Right, and that's a huge problem. It doesn't mandate a Ministry of Truth, but that is the logical evolution/end game.

Edited April 16, 2018 by bernorange

[F250 28674]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

The bill doesn't say. And right now, it seems completely agnostic as to what truth is (as determined by the website).

Having read the text of the bill, I agree. It reads like a lot of other government regulations that lets the organization define what it will do and how it will do it. Basically, it's a fairly useless regulation that serves no purpose.

[bolverk 29394]

Just now, bernorange said:

@bolverk - Right, and that's a huge problem. 

Agreed. It's a shitty bill.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The bill doesn't say. And right now, it seems completely agnostic as to what truth is (as determined by the website).

Agreed. This bill isn't really a necessary thing. It may be that they're just trying to gain the attention of other social media platforms. It's already been proven that the right amount of pressure can force a company to start vetting its content better (Facebook).

[bolverk 29394]

Just now, F250 said:

Having read the text of the bill, I agree. It reads like a lot of other government regulations that lets the organization define what it will do and how it will do it. Basically, it's a fairly useless regulation that serves no purpose.

True, especially since Facebook is already doing this voluntarily and there are not many other platforms out there.

[bernorange 8348]

Just now, bolverk said:

... and there are not many other platforms out there.

The bill applies to just about every website that allows people to post thoughts or opinions and has a server located in California.  It would apply to Surly if Surly had a server in California.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Good, then we could just have all of smokey's 4chan bullshit deleted automatically.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

@Mojo Hand - I think the issue is that you, et. al., are interpreting my comments as if I were a political partisan.  You are trapped in the mindset that you are projecting on me.  I erred in using ambiguous language.  If a Pub pushed a bill to legalize gay marriage, and someone created a thread stating, "I thought Pubs were against gay marriage; apparently not" it would be the same thing.  It's not a statement addressing all Pubs.  Just the one Pub who isn't in keeping with Pub character/stereotype.

Any thoughts on the bill itself?

No, the issue is that you're being dishonest and unable to admit that you let pettiness get the better of you.  It happens to all of us, and when it does we deserve to get called out on it.   The notion that you truly believed that Dems are the free speech party, and that all Dems are in lockstep, and that you are genuinely surprised that a local Dem rep broke ranks, is patently absurd. And, frankly, embarrassing for you to claim. 

As for the bill, I would oppose it.  But that's not what this thread is really about, per the OP.

[Fudge Nuggets 19144]

If the American public wouldn’t continue to fall for stupid shit like Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, Pizzagate, John McCain’s little negra baby, etc. then this kind of bill would never see the light of day.

Thanks a lot dumbasses.

[JBJ 3648]

16 minutes ago, F250 said:

Having read the text of the bill, I agree. It reads like a lot of other government regulations that lets the organization define what it will do and how it will do it. Basically, it's a fairly useless regulation that serves no purpose.

At some point the legal system would have to set the boundaries that the legislature didn't.

It's a feel-good law that could go very south a lot quicker than it could improve anything.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

I lean left and I think it's a dangerous concept.  I don't like the idea of demanding that the press or any other conduit of expression vet content for truth, even if just limited to "news".

Truth evolves.  New facts come to light, man.  I don't know how or why social media outlets could be held to a higher standard than the press itself, and if The National Enquirer can publish a story asserting that  Ben Affleck's pubic hairs contain evidence of a 1939 alien invasion, then why should a social media site be held to a stricter standard?

[F250 28674]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

At some point the legal system would have to set the boundaries that the legislature didn't.

It's a feel-good law that could go very south a lot quicker than it could improve anything.

I don't disagree.

[Brisketexan 104537]

Shitty bill, too broad, too vague, and too, well....shitty.

And as a practical matter, it might be so broad and vague that it's practically unenforceable.  It looks to be mostly feel-good "DO SOMETHING!" legislation.  We the people have a proven track record of shittastic legislation like that.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Looks like smokey's socks are at it again

[David Dennison 18646]

4 hours ago, bernorange said:

The bill applies to just about every website that allows people to post thoughts or opinions and has a server located in California.  It would apply to Surly if Surly had a server in California.

And if it doesn't pass muster under the Supreme Court's strict scrutiny test regarding government restriction of speech, it will be deemed unconstitutional.

[El Diablo 4232]

6 hours ago, bernorange said:

The bill applies to just about every website that allows people to post thoughts or opinions and has a server located in California.  It would apply to Surly if Surly had a server in California.

So Surly would be required to delete your thread title? Are you trying to argue FOR this bill or AGAINST it? j/k

[maninblack 7974]

They’re certainly not against war anymore