- (a) A person that operates a social media platform shall disclose whether or not that social media platform has a policy or mechanism in place to address the spread of misinformation with respect to, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) Reducing the spread of misinformation that contributes to the risk of imminent violence or physical harm. (2) Reducing the spread of harmful, verifiably inauthentic content. (3) Practices intended to deceptively and substantially manipulate or disrupt the behavior of users on the social media platform. (b) A person that operates a social media platform shall make the disclosure required by subdivision (a) easily accessible on the social media platform’s internet website and mobile application. (c) (1) A person shall be subject to a civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for each day that person is in violation of this section.
When they mean A person in (c)(1) are they referencing the operator of the social media platform, twitter or facebook etc, or when it means A person that person is the consumer or user that is using said social media platform?
Definitely not the user. The operator is essentially like a business owner.
Disclosure just means expressed in a way that the user can see it. Similar to California stating all things have been known to cause cancer.
So Facebook/Twitter would be required to pay $1000 if they do not censor misinformation?
These wordings are always less than direct, but it means they have to disclose that information could be false. Not necessarily do they have to censor it to avoid the fine.
It’s a cluster fuck anyway because who’s to say what’s misinformation or not? That’s the crux of the matter and knowingly promoting falsehoods without disclosing the possibility is the hoop they want to close. This essentially means everything is false unless the rule makers allow it and it has to be literally spelled out as such.