4 ms·

Colorado Bill Seeks to Impose $5k/Day Fine to Social Firms for 'Fake News'

27 points by jmsflknr 6y ago

bdcravens 6y ago
Probably makes more sense to link to the actual bill rather than the Slashdot discussion: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-132 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-132
vanattab 6y ago
There is no way such a bill could survive a constituanal challenge.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  It's really telling that you were downvoted for simply stating an opinion, that is both relevant and fair. The same people downvoting you, want government to have the ability to downvote anything that doesn't adhere to the word of the day they're following. This nonsense has to stop, lest when the pendulum swings, the people pushing these outrageous claims are going be in for a world of hurt and no one will be empathetic to their cause. Edit: At original response here, op had been downvoted and grey. Glad to see, it's not now.
- adamredwoods 6y ago
  Makes me think of (with much bitterness): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
opwieurposiu 6y ago
If you read the full text it appears this is an attempt to create some kind of social-media court you are required to go through before suing an internet company in regular state court. This bill: Creates a Digital communications commission, If you encounter "UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES" by an internet company with more then 100k users, you can make a case with the commision. The commision reviews your case and if you prevail, the commision can then grant "Equitable Relief" which is a legal term of art meaning non-monetary relief. Ie, government forces you to stop doing whatever it was that aggrieved the plaintiff. Examples of unfair practices: "hate speech; undermine election integrity; disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news; or authorize, encourage, or carry out violations of users' privacy" My take: Some terms like "conspiracy theory" are conspicuously absent from the definitions section. The specifics of user privacy violations are much better defined. This bill is a curious mix that simultaneously encourages user privacy and social media censorship. I think it would be worthwhile to split this into a censorship bill and a user privacy bill and then put both as ballot referendums.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Ohh, this should be good. Anti-vaxx is essentially a conspiracy theory(about either bill gates, or a cabal of disease-causing doctors), and Colorado has one of the highest rates of anti-vaxxers in the nation.

27 points by jmsflknr 6y ago

Probably makes more sense to link to the actual bill rather than the Slashdot discussion: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-132 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-132

vanattab 6y ago

There is no way such a bill could survive a constituanal challenge.

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
It's really telling that you were downvoted for simply stating an opinion, that is both relevant and fair. The same people downvoting you, want government to have the ability to downvote anything that doesn't adhere to the word of the day they're following. This nonsense has to stop, lest when the pendulum swings, the people pushing these outrageous claims are going be in for a world of hurt and no one will be empathetic to their cause. Edit: At original response here, op had been downvoted and grey. Glad to see, it's not now.
adamredwoods 6y ago
Makes me think of (with much bitterness): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

opwieurposiu 6y ago

If you read the full text it appears this is an attempt to create some kind of social-media court you are required to go through before suing an internet company in regular state court. This bill: Creates a Digital communications commission, If you encounter "UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES" by an internet company with more then 100k users, you can make a case with the commision. The commision reviews your case and if you prevail, the commision can then grant "Equitable Relief" which is a legal term of art meaning non-monetary relief. Ie, government forces you to stop doing whatever it was that aggrieved the plaintiff. Examples of unfair practices: "hate speech; undermine election integrity; disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news; or authorize, encourage, or carry out violations of users' privacy" My take: Some terms like "conspiracy theory" are conspicuously absent from the definitions section. The specifics of user privacy violations are much better defined. This bill is a curious mix that simultaneously encourages user privacy and social media censorship. I think it would be worthwhile to split this into a censorship bill and a user privacy bill and then put both as ballot referendums.

oh_sigh 6y ago
Ohh, this should be good. Anti-vaxx is essentially a conspiracy theory(about either bill gates, or a cabal of disease-causing doctors), and Colorado has one of the highest rates of anti-vaxxers in the nation.