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

[Senator-elect Spark]

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.

2. Users should be afforded control over their personal information related to social media platforms.

3. Atlasians increasingly rely on social media platforms to express their opinions and communicate with friends, their communities, and the nation at large.

4. Social media platforms have transformed into the new public town square.

5. Social media platforms have become as important for conveying public opinion as public utilities are for supporting modern society.

6. Social media platforms hold a unique place in preserving free speech protections for all Atlasians and should be treated similarly to common carriers.

7. Social media platforms that unfairly censor, shadow ban, deplatform, or apply post-prioritization algorithms to Atlasian candidates, users, or residents are not acting in good faith and are abusing their big corporate power to the detriment of free expression and an open society.

8. Social media platforms should not take any action in bad faith to restrict access or availability to Atlasians.

9. Social media platforms have unfairly censored, shadow banned, deplatformed, and applied post-prioritization algorithms in the Atlasia.

10. The government of Atlasia has a substantial interest in protecting its residents from inconsistent and unfair actions by inordinately powerful social media platforms.

11. The nation must vigorously enforce its laws to protect the people of Atlasia.

TITLE II: DEFINITIONS

1. As used in this act, the term:

“Algorithm” means a mathematical set of rules that specifies how a group of data behaves and that will assist in ranking search results and maintaining order or that is used in sorting or ranking content or material based on relevancy or other factors instead of using published time or chronological order of such content or material.

“Affiliate” means: A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of or held civilly liable for an antitrust violation; or an entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity that has been convicted of or held civilly liable for an antitrust violation. The term includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in the management of an affiliate. The term also includes a person who knowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has violated an antitrust law during the preceding fourty-eight (48) months.

“Antitrust violation” means any failure to comply with a federal or Regional antitrust law as determined in a civil or criminal proceeding brought by the Attorney General, a Regional attorney, a similar body or agency of another Region, the Federal Trade Commission, or the Atlasian Department of Justice.

“Antitrust violator vendor list” means the list required to be kept by the Department of Justice pursuant to this act.

“Censor” includes any action taken by a social media platform to delete, regulate, restrict, edit, alter, inhibit the publication or republication of, suspend a right to post, remove, or post an addendum to any content or material posted by a user. The term also includes actions to inhibit the ability of a user to be viewable by or to interact with another user of the social media platform.

“Deplatform” means the action or practice by a social media platform to permanently delete or ban a user or to temporarily delete or ban a user from the social media platform for more than fourteen (14) days.

“Journalistic enterprise” means an entity doing business in Atlasia that: 1. Publishes in excess of 10,000 words available online with at least 500 paid subscribers or 10,000 monthly active users; 2. Publishes 50 hours of audio or video available online with at least 1 million viewers annually; 3. Operates a cable channel that provides more than 40 hours of content per week to more than 10,000 cable television subscribers; or 4. Operates under a broadcast license issued by the Federal Communications Commission.

“Post-prioritization” means action by a social media platform to place, feature, or prioritize certain content or material ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, a feed, a view, or in search results. The term does not include post-prioritization of content and material of a third party, including other users, based on payments by that third party, to the social media platform.

“Shadow ban” means action by a social media platform, through any means, whether the action is determined by a natural person or an algorithm, to limit or eliminate the exposure of a user or content or material posted by a user to other users of the social media platform. This term includes acts of shadow banning by a social media platform which are not readily apparent to a user.

“Social media platform” means any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider that: 1. Provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including an Internet platform or a social media site; 2. Operates as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or other legal entity; 3. Does business in Atlasia; and either has annual gross revenues in excess of $10 million at least 1 million monthly individual platform participants globally.

“User” means a person who resides or is domiciled in Atlasian and who has an account on a social media platform, regardless of whether the person posts or has posted content, video, or other material to the social media platform.

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.

2. Upon a finding of a violation of this act by the Attorney General, in addition to the remedies provided elsewhere in this act, the social media platform may be fined $250,000 per day for a candidate for Atlasian or Regional offices and $25,000 per day for a candidate for other offices.

3. A social media platform that willfully provides free advertising for a candidate must inform the candidate of such in-kind contribution. Posts, content, material, and comments by candidates which are shown on the platform in the same or similar way as other users’ posts, content, material, and comments are not considered free advertising. Deplatforming an opponent of a candidate in violation of this act shall constitute an in-kind contribution subject to reporting requiresments.

TITLE IV: ANTI-TRUST

1. A person or an affiliate who has been placed on the antitrust violator vendor list following a conviction or being held civilly liable for an antitrust violation may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply for any new contract to provide any goods or services to the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply for a new contract with the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on new leases of real property to the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a new contract with the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof; and may not transact new business with the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof.

2. the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof may not accept a bid, proposal, or reply from, award a new contract to, or transact new business with any person or affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list unless that person or affiliate has been removed from the list pursuant to this act.

3. Beginning January 1, 2023, all invitations to bid, requests for proposals, and invitations to negotiate from the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof must contain a statement informing applicants of the provisions of this act. The Justice Department shall maintain an antitrust violator vendor list of the names and addresses of the persons or affiliates who have been disqualified from the public contracting and purchasing process under this title.

4. After receiving notice of a judgment, sentence, or order from any source that a person was convicted or held civilly liable for an antitrust violation and after the Justice Department has investigated the information and verified both the judgment, sentence, or order and the identity of the person named in the documentation, the department must immediately notify the person or affiliate in writing of its intent to place the name of that person or affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list and of the person’s or affiliate’s right to a hearing and to offer evidence and have assistance of counsel, the procedure that must be followed, and the applicable time requirements as set by the Justice Department to provide due process. If the person or affiliate does not request a hearing, the department shall enter a final order placing the name of the person or affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list. A person or affiliate may be placed on the antitrust violator vendor list only after the department has provided the person or affiliate with a notice of intent.

5. A person or an affiliate may be removed from the antitrust violator vendor list subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Justice Department upon a determination that removal is in the public interest. In determining whether removal is in the public interest, Attorney General must consider any relevant factors. Upon proof that a person was found not guilty or not civilly liable, the antitrust violation case was dismissed, the court entered a finding in the person’s favor, the person’s conviction or determination of liability has been reversed on appeal, or the person has been pardoned, the Attorney General shall determine that removal of the person or an affiliate of that person from the antitrust violator vendor list is in the public interest. A person or an affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list may petition for removal from the list no sooner than six (6) months after the date a final order is entered pursuant to this act but may petition for removal at any time if the petition is based upon a reversal of the conviction or liability on appellate review or pardon.

6. If the petition for removal is denied, the person or affiliate may not petition for another hearing on removal for a period of nine (9) months after the date of denial unless the petition is based upon a reversal of the conviction on appellate review or a pardon.

7. A person who has been placed on the antitrust violator vendor list is not a qualified applicant for public economic incentives.

TITLE V: SOCIAL MEDIA PRACTICES

1. A social media platform that fails to comply with any of the provisions of this act commits an unfair or deceptive act or practice under antitrust law.

2. A social media platform must publish the standards, including detailed definitions, it uses or has used for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban.

3. A social media platform must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.

4. A social media platform must inform each user about any changes to its user rules, terms, and agreements before implementing the changes and may not make changes more than once every thirty (30) days.

5. A social media platform may not censor or shadow ban a user’s content or material or deplatform a user from the social media platform without notifying the user who posted or attempted to post the content or material, or in a way that violates this act.

6. A social media platform must:

A. Provide a mechanism that allows a user to request the number of other individual platform participants who were provided or shown the user’s content or posts.

B. Provide, upon request, a user with the number of other individual platform participants who were provided or shown content or posts.

7. A social media platform must:

A. Categorize algorithms used for post-prioritization and shadow banning.

B. Allow a user to opt out of post-prioritization and shadow banning algorithm categories to allow sequential or chronological posts and content.

8. A social media platform must provide users with an annual notice on the use of algorithms for post-prioritization and shadow banning and reoffer annually the opt-out opportunity above.

9. A social media platform may not apply or use post prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about a user who is known by the social media platform to be a candidate as defined above, beginning on the date of qualification and ending on the day after the election or the date the candidate ceases to be a candidate. Post-prioritization of certain content or material from or about a candidate for office based on payments to the social media platform by such candidate for office or a third party is not a violation of this provision. 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.

10. A social media platform must allow a user who has been deplatformed to access or retrieve all of the user’s information, content, material, and data for at least sixty (60) days after the user receives the required notice.

11. A social media platform may not take any action to censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast. Post prioritization of certain journalistic enterprise content based on payments to the social media platform by such journalistic enterprise is not a violation of this paragraph. This paragraph does not apply if the content or material is obscene or otherwise illegal.

12. For purposes of this act a notification must:

A. Be delivered in writing via mail, electronic mail, or direct electronic notification to the user within seven (7) days after the censoring action.

B. Include a thorough rationale explaining the reason that the social media platform censored the user.

C. Include a precise and thorough explanation of how the social media platform became aware of the censored content or material, including a thorough explanation of the algorithms used, if any, to identify or flag the user’s content or material objectionable.

D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this provision, a social media platform is not required to notify a user if the censored content or material is obscene or otherwise illegal.

13. If the Justice Department, by its own inquiry or as a result of a complaint, suspects that a violation of this act is imminent, occurring, or has occurred, the Department may investigate the suspected violation in accordance with this part. Based on its investigation, the Department may bring a civil or administrative action under this part.

14. A user may bring a private cause of action for violations of this act, and if successful the court may award the following remedies to the user:

A. Up to $100,000 in statutory damages per proven claim.

B. Actual damages.

C. If aggravating factors are present, punitive damages.

D. An apology

E. Other forms of equitable relief, including injunctive relief.

F. Costs and reasonable attorney fees.

15. In an investigation by the Justice Department into alleged violations of this section, the department’s investigative powers include, but are not limited to, the ability to subpoena any algorithm used by a social media platform related to any alleged violation.

TITLE VI: AMENDMENTS AND ENACTMENT

1. This act shall amend and supersede those portions of Section 230 the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230), and any other federal law, to the extent that such laws conflict with this act.

2. Any provision herein found to be unconstitutional by a court of proper jurisdiction shall be severable from the remainder of this act to the maximum extent permissible.

3. Unless otherwise specified herein, this act shall take effect January 1, 2023.

Sponsor: Mr. Reactionary

The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.

[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.

[Devout Centrist]

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.

[S019]

This is ridiculous

[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."

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

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.

[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.

[Senator-elect Spark]

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.

[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.

...

[Senator-elect Spark]

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.

...

Thank you for this amendment, 24 hours to object.

[GregTheGreat657]

This is ridiculous ridiculously good

[rpryor03]

I can't believe that I'm opposing regulating private companies and Mr. R is supporting them, but here we are. I move to strike Title III and Title V. I'm down for an anti-trust bill, but I'm not down to tell social media companies what they can and can't do.

[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.

[S019]

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.

2. Users should be afforded control over their personal information related to social media platforms.

3. Atlasians increasingly rely on social media platforms to express their opinions and communicate with friends, their communities, and the nation at large.

4. Social media platforms have transformed into the new public town square.

5. Social media platforms have become as important for conveying public opinion as public utilities are for supporting modern society.

6. Social media platforms hold a unique place in preserving free speech protections for all Atlasians and should be treated similarly to common carriers.

7. Social media platforms that unfairly censor, shadow ban, deplatform, or apply post-prioritization algorithms to Atlasian candidates, users, or residents are not acting in good faith and are abusing their big corporate power to the detriment of free expression and an open society.

8. Social media platforms should not take any action in bad faith to restrict access or availability to Atlasians.

9. Social media platforms have unfairly censored, shadow banned, deplatformed, and applied post-prioritization algorithms in the Atlasia.

10. The government of Atlasia has a substantial interest in protecting its residents from inconsistent and unfair actions by inordinately powerful social media platforms.

11. The nation must vigorously enforce its laws to protect the people of Atlasia.

TITLE II: DEFINITIONS

1. As used in this act, the term:

“Algorithm” means a mathematical set of rules that specifies how a group of data behaves and that will assist in ranking search results and maintaining order or that is used in sorting or ranking content or material based on relevancy or other factors instead of using published time or chronological order of such content or material.

“Affiliate” means: A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of or held civilly liable for an antitrust violation; or an entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity that has been convicted of or held civilly liable for an antitrust violation. The term includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in the management of an affiliate. The term also includes a person who knowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has violated an antitrust law during the preceding fourty-eight (48) months.

“Antitrust violation” means any failure to comply with a federal or Regional antitrust law as determined in a civil or criminal proceeding brought by the Attorney General, a Regional attorney, a similar body or agency of another Region, the Federal Trade Commission, or the Atlasian Department of Justice.

“Antitrust violator vendor list” means the list required to be kept by the Department of Justice pursuant to this act.

“Censor” includes any action taken by a social media platform to delete, regulate, restrict, edit, alter, inhibit the publication or republication of, suspend a right to post, remove, or post an addendum to any content or material posted by a user. The term also includes actions to inhibit the ability of a user to be viewable by or to interact with another user of the social media platform.

“Deplatform” means the action or practice by a social media platform to permanently delete or ban a user or to temporarily delete or ban a user from the social media platform for more than fourteen (14) days.

“Journalistic enterprise” means an entity doing business in Atlasia that: 1. Publishes in excess of 10,000 words available online with at least 500 paid subscribers or 10,000 monthly active users; 2. Publishes 50 hours of audio or video available online with at least 1 million viewers annually; 3. Operates a cable channel that provides more than 40 hours of content per week to more than 10,000 cable television subscribers; or 4. Operates under a broadcast license issued by the Federal Communications Commission.

“Post-prioritization” means action by a social media platform to place, feature, or prioritize certain content or material ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, a feed, a view, or in search results. The term does not include post-prioritization of content and material of a third party, including other users, based on payments by that third party, to the social media platform.

“Shadow ban” means action by a social media platform, through any means, whether the action is determined by a natural person or an algorithm, to limit or eliminate the exposure of a user or content or material posted by a user to other users of the social media platform. This term includes acts of shadow banning by a social media platform which are not readily apparent to a user.

“Social media platform” means any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider that: 1. Provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including an Internet platform or a social media site; 2. Operates as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or other legal entity; 3. Does business in Atlasia; and either has annual gross revenues in excess of $10 million at least 1 million monthly individual platform participants globally.

“User” means a person who resides or is domiciled in Atlasian and who has an account on a social media platform, regardless of whether the person posts or has posted content, video, or other material to the social media platform.

TITLE III: POLITICAL CANDIDATES

 
1. A social media platform may not willfully deplatform a candidate for public office , without adequate reason for doing so 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.

2. Upon a finding of a violation of this act by the Attorney General, in addition to the remedies provided elsewhere in this act, the social media platform may be fined $250,000 $25,000 per day for a candidate for Atlasian or Regional offices and $25,000 $2,500 per day for a candidate for other offices.

3. A social media platform that willfully provides free advertising for a candidate must inform the candidate of such in-kind contribution. Posts, content, material, and comments by candidates which are shown on the platform in the same or similar way as other users’ posts, content, material, and comments are not considered free advertising. Deplatforming an opponent of a candidate in violation of this act shall constitute an in-kind contribution subject to reporting requiresments.

TITLE IV: ANTI-TRUST

1. A person or an affiliate who has been placed on the antitrust violator vendor list following a conviction or being held civilly liable for an antitrust violation may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply for any new contract to provide any goods or services to the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply for a new contract with the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on new leases of real property to the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a new contract with the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof; and may not transact new business with the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof.

2. the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof may not accept a bid, proposal, or reply from, award a new contract to, or transact new business with any person or affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list unless that person or affiliate has been removed from the list pursuant to this act.

3. Beginning January 1, 2023, all invitations to bid, requests for proposals, and invitations to negotiate from the government of Atlasia or any department or agency thereof must contain a statement informing applicants of the provisions of this act. The Justice Department shall maintain an antitrust violator vendor list of the names and addresses of the persons or affiliates who have been disqualified from the public contracting and purchasing process under this title.

4. After receiving notice of a judgment, sentence, or order from any source that a person was convicted or held civilly liable for an antitrust violation and after the Justice Department has investigated the information and verified both the judgment, sentence, or order and the identity of the person named in the documentation, the department must immediately notify the person or affiliate in writing of its intent to place the name of that person or affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list and of the person’s or affiliate’s right to a hearing and to offer evidence and have assistance of counsel, the procedure that must be followed, and the applicable time requirements as set by the Justice Department to provide due process. If the person or affiliate does not request a hearing, the department shall enter a final order placing the name of the person or affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list. A person or affiliate may be placed on the antitrust violator vendor list only after the department has provided the person or affiliate with a notice of intent.

5. A person or an affiliate may be removed from the antitrust violator vendor list subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Justice Department upon a determination that removal is in the public interest. In determining whether removal is in the public interest, Attorney General must consider any relevant factors. Upon proof that a person was found not guilty or not civilly liable, the antitrust violation case was dismissed, the court entered a finding in the person’s favor, the person’s conviction or determination of liability has been reversed on appeal, or the person has been pardoned, the Attorney General shall determine that removal of the person or an affiliate of that person from the antitrust violator vendor list is in the public interest. A person or an affiliate on the antitrust violator vendor list may petition for removal from the list no sooner than six (6) months after the date a final order is entered pursuant to this act but may petition for removal at any time if the petition is based upon a reversal of the conviction or liability on appellate review or pardon.

6. If the petition for removal is denied, the person or affiliate may not petition for another hearing on removal for a period of nine (9) months after the date of denial unless the petition is based upon a reversal of the conviction on appellate review or a pardon.

7. A person who has been placed on the antitrust violator vendor list is not a qualified applicant for public economic incentives.

TITLE V: SOCIAL MEDIA PRACTICES

1. A social media platform that fails to comply with any of the provisions of this act commits an unfair or deceptive act or practice under antitrust law.

2. A social media platform must publish the standards, including detailed definitions, it uses or has used for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban.

3. A social media platform must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.

4. A social media platform must inform each user about any changes to its user rules, terms, and agreements before implementing the changes and may not make changes more than once every thirty (30) days.

5. A social media platform may not censor or shadow ban a user’s content or material or deplatform a user from the social media platform without notifying the user who posted or attempted to post the content or material, or in a way that violates this act.

6. A social media platform must:

A. Provide a mechanism that allows a user to request the number of other individual platform participants who were provided or shown the user’s content or posts.

B. Provide, upon request, a user with the number of other individual platform participants who were provided or shown content or posts.

7. A social media platform must:

A. Categorize algorithms used for post-prioritization and shadow banning.

B. Allow a user to opt out of post-prioritization and shadow banning algorithm categories to allow sequential or chronological posts and content.

8. A social media platform must provide users with an annual notice on the use of algorithms for post-prioritization and shadow banning and reoffer annually the opt-out opportunity above.

9. A social media platform may not apply or use post prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about a user who is known by the social media platform to be a candidate as defined above, beginning on the date of qualification and ending on the day after the election or the date the candidate ceases to be a candidate. Post-prioritization of certain content or material from or about a candidate for office based on payments to the social media platform by such candidate for office or a third party is not a violation of this provision. 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.

10. A social media platform must allow a user who has been deplatformed to access or retrieve all of the user’s information, content, material, and data for at least sixty (60) days after the user receives the required notice.

11. A social media platform may not take any action to censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast. Post prioritization of certain journalistic enterprise content based on payments to the social media platform by such journalistic enterprise is not a violation of this paragraph. This paragraph does not apply if the content or material is obscene, untrue or otherwise illegal.

12. For purposes of this act a notification must:

A. Be delivered in writing via mail, electronic mail, or direct electronic notification to the user within seven (7) days after the censoring action.

B. Include a thorough rationale explaining the reason that the social media platform censored the user.

C. Include a precise and thorough explanation of how the social media platform became aware of the censored content or material, including a thorough explanation of the algorithms used, if any, to identify or flag the user’s content or material objectionable.

D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this provision, a social media platform is not required to notify a user if the censored content or material is obscene or otherwise illegal.

13. If the Justice Department, by its own inquiry or as a result of a complaint, suspects that a violation of this act is imminent, occurring, or has occurred, the Department may investigate the suspected violation in accordance with this part. Based on its investigation, the Department may bring a civil or administrative action under this part.

14. A user may bring a private cause of action for violations of this act, and if successful the court may award the following remedies to the user:

A. Up to $100,000 in statutory damages per proven claim.

B. Actual damages.

C. If aggravating factors are present, punitive damages.

D. An apology

E. Other forms of equitable relief, including injunctive relief.

F. Costs and reasonable attorney fees.

15. In an investigation by the Justice Department into alleged violations of this section, the department’s investigative powers include, but are not limited to, the ability to subpoena any algorithm used by a social media platform related to any alleged violation.

TITLE VI: AMENDMENTS AND ENACTMENT

1. This act shall amend and supersede those portions of Section 230 the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230), and any other federal law, to the extent that such laws conflict with this act.

2. Any provision herein found to be unconstitutional by a court of proper jurisdiction shall be severable from the remainder of this act to the maximum extent permissible.

3. Unless otherwise specified herein, this act shall take effect January 1, 2023.

Here's my best attempt to try and clean up this mess

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

[Senator-elect Spark]

Amendment goes to a vote for 3 days.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[Senator-elect Spark]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[GregTheGreat657]

Nay

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[AGA]

Nay

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Aye

[GregTheGreat657]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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