SB 110-01: Social Media Reform Act (Passed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

This bill acknowledges the important role social media now has in our society in promoting public communication and sets reasonable regulations to limit the accumulation of unfair power and the abuse of such power to the detriment of the people.

Title III prohibits the deplatforming of political candidates and unreported advertising donations. This ensures the people have full access to their candidates and that multibillion dollar tech companies are unfairly influencing politics.

Title IV imposes anti-trust restrictions, civil penalties, and government contracting limitations on big social media companies that violate the act.

Title V defines unfair trade practice under anti-trust law to include:

Not posting their policies related to censorship, bans, and shadowbans.

Unequally applying censorship, bans, and shadowbans.

Not notifying users of TOS changes with at least 30 days notice.

Not providing a mechanism that allows a users to request the number of other individual platform participants who were shown the user’s content or posts.

Not identifying algorithms used for post-prioritization and shadow banning.

Not allowing an opt out of post-prioritization and shadow banning algorithm categories.

Not providing users with an annual notice on the use of algorithms and reoffer annually the opt-out opportunity above.

Censoring political candidates.

Not allowing deplatformed users to access or retrieve all of the user’s information, content, material, and data for at least sixty (60) days.

Censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast with exceptions for obscene or otherwise illegal content.

Not providing notice why a user was censored or how the conpany knew to censor the user.


It also allows DOJ and private enforcement lawsuits.

[Mr. Reactionary]

1. A social media platform may not willfully deplatform a candidate for public office who is known by the social media platform to be a candidate, beginning on the date of qualification and ending on the day after the election or the date the candidate ceases to be a candidate. A social media platform must provide each user a method by which the user may be identified as a qualified candidate and which provides sufficient information to allow the social media platform to confirm the user’s qualification by reviewing the website of the Justice Department.

I see no reason for political candidates not to be subject to the same terms of service as any other user on a social media platform. This effectively creates two sets of rules: one for regular users and one for politicians. I am willing to consider forbidding social media companies from discriminating on political advertisments for specific candidates, but to completely forbid banning political candidates is a step too far.

If we include the following qualification would this allay your concerns?

"This paragraph does not apply if the content or material is obscene or otherwise illegal."

[Mr. Reactionary]

Not fully opposed but having two different sets of rules doesn’t seem the best way of going about things. This creates a double standard.

Im willing to allow for the removal for illegal content. I will point out that if a platform bans 1 candidate but not the other that seems like a like-kind donation because that is bestowing a personal and tangible benefit on the other candidate. Equal access is not advantaging any side but picking and choosing which candidates are allowed on a platform is a definite benefit to the chosen candidates. The goal of this bill is for large social media platforms to be politically neutral public fora that treat lawful speech fairly and equally. Arbitrarily deplatforming candidates is bad.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Not fully opposed but having two different sets of rules doesn’t seem the best way of going about things. This creates a double standard.

Im willing to allow for the removal for illegal content. I will point out that if a platform bans 1 candidate but not the other that seems like a like-kind donation because that is bestowing a personal and tangible benefit on the other candidate. Equal access is not advantaging any side but picking and choosing which candidates are allowed on a platform is a definite benefit to the chosen candidates. The goal of this bill is for large social media platforms to be politically neutral public fora that treat lawful speech fairly and equally. Arbitrarily deplatforming candidates is bad.

Makes sense. Would anyone like to offer an amendment to add that provision for removal of illegal content? I am of the position that it will make our internet better and safer. Legitimizing dangerous rhetoric can be harmful and free speech is not protected under 100% of circumstances.

Amendment

...

TITLE III: POLITICAL CANDIDATES

1. A social media platform may not willfully deplatform a candidate for public office who is known by the social media platform to be a candidate, beginning on the date of qualification and ending on the day after the election or the date the candidate ceases to be a candidate. A social media platform must provide each user a method by which the user may be identified as a qualified candidate and which provides sufficient information to allow the social media platform to confirm the user’s qualification by reviewing the website of the Justice Department. This titls does not apply if the content or material for which the candidate is deplatformed is obscene or otherwise illegal.

...

[Mr. Reactionary]

I object to the motion to strike Title III as I think the targeted deplatforming of political candidates from a public forum is at best an illegal donation and at worst big tech corporate giants rigging free and fair elections. All candidates should have equal opprtunity to access the people in a public forum. If a social media company is to be viewed as a neutral platform that merely hosts 3rd party speech and is therefore entitled to immunity for 3rd party content, the platform must be neutral. IMO if a social media selectively allows access to only certain candidates that is clear editorializing and the platform should lose its immunity.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yeah, super duper object to S019's nonsense amendments.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

There is a reference to "Southerners" in the first section of the bill. I am guessing that should be amended to refer to "Atlasians"?

Yeah, iust have missed it. Which part?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'd like to cosponsor Mr. R's version of this bill

No objection from me.

[Mr. Reactionary]

There is a reference to "Southerners" in the first section of the bill. I am guessing that should be amended to refer to "Atlasians"?

Yeah, iust have missed it. Which part?

SOCIAL MEDIA REFORM ACT

Senate Bill
to ensure big social media companies cannot unfairly deplatform, censor, shadowban, or otherwise harm lawful user content

TITLE I: FINDINGS

The government of Atlasia finds that:

1. Social media platforms represent an extraordinary advance in communication technology for southerners.
...

Ah. I propose we amend that to say Atlasians.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The previous amendment replaced Southerners with Atlasians? It doesn't seem to indicate the replacement, just removal.

The amendment motion was for Southerners to be replaced with Atlasians so that should cover it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I second the motion.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye