Thread by @ooana

🚨🧵
BILL NUMBER: S7568
SPONSOR: HOYLMAN
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the general obligations law, in relation to prohibiting
the knowing and reckless promotion of unlawful or false material and
providing remedies for the violation of such prohibition

PURPOSE:
To prevent the knowing and reckless promotion of unlawful or false mate-
rial.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill creates a new Article 18-D of the General Obli-
gations Law, which will create a new cause of action for public nuisance
against any person that unlawfully or

unreasonably knowingly or reck-
lessly creates or contributes to a condition that endangers public
health or safety through the promotion of content the person knew or
reasonably should know is harmful, false, or unlawful. Any person, the

attorney general, or a city corporation counsel may bring an action for
such public nuisance.

Section 2 of the bill is the effective date.

JUSTIFICATION:

For years, social media companies have claimed protection from any legal
consequences of their actions relating to content on their websites by
pointing to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230

provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service
shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
by another information content provider." Essentially, websites cannot
be held liable for the tortious speech of its users.

Social media websites are no longer a simple host for their users'
content, however. Many social media companies employ complex algorithms
designed to put the most controversial and provocative content in front
of users as much as possible.

These algorithms help the social media
companies drive engagement with their platform, keep users hooked, and
increase profits.

Social media companies employing these algorithms are
not an impassive forum for the exchange of ideas; they are active
participants in the conversation.

In October 2021, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee, provided
shocking testimony to United State Senators alleging that the company
knew of research proving that its product was harmful to teenagers but

purposefully hid that research from the public. She also provided testi-
mony that the company was willing to use hateful content to retain users
on the social media website.

Social media amplification has been linked to many societal ills,
including vaccine disinformation, encouragement of self-harm, bullying,
and body-image issues among youth, and

extremist radicalization leading
to terrorist attacks like the January 6th insurrection against the U.S.
Capitol.

When a website knowingly or recklessly promotes hateful or violent
content, they create a threat to public health and safety. The promotion
of content is a separate, affirmative act from the mere hosting of

information and therefore not contemplated by the protections of Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This bill will provide a tool for the Attorney General, city corporation
counsels, and private citizens to hold social media companies and others
accountable when they promote content they know or reasonably should
know the content:

1. Advocates for the use of force, is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action, and is likely to produce such action;

2. Advocates for self-harm, is directed to inciting or producing immi-
nent self-harm, and is likely to incite or produce such action; or

3. Includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that
is likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect thirty days after it shall have become a law.

You can read the unrolled version of this thread here:
typefully.com/u/ooana/t/YRz1…

https://twitter.com/ooana/status/1480681424495812620