Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    pan bill.

    California Senator Dr. Richard Pan has introduced a bill (SB 1424) which currently reads as follows:

    Doesn't sound too bad. He wants to look at the problem of false information and try to figure out some solutions. In fact it sounds pretty weak. A study to be completed by the end of 2019 doesn't seem like anything more than a token stab at the problem.

    So why then do we have claims like the following, made on a "chemtrail" site, Geoengineering Watch, on June 30, 2018
    Source, @11:50 (automated transcript edited for clarity)

    He seems to be referring to an article like this one from a "prepper" site.
    There's many other sites that have similar stories, some focus on the vaccine angle, and some just talk about freedom of speech.

    The reason for all this confusion seems to be a misunderstand of the way the legislative process works. Most of the stories quote this text from an old version of the bill:
    Note even this version of the bill is nothing like the draconian characterizations suggested earlier. The worst thing that it requires is a rather vague "Placing a warning on a news story containing false information." The intent here is obviously that sites like Facebook would have fact-checkers look at news stories, and label ones that are false. This is obviously a very hard thing to do, let alone enforce. So this provision was removed from the bill. In fact that entire section was removed from the bill.

    California Senate bills go through several revisions before (possibly) coming to a vote. SB-1424 had five versions. The "placing a warning" comes from the second one dated 3/22 (an earlier 2/16 version was actually a placeholder bill that was entirely replace on 3/22). A month after that, on 4/16, all of the requirements to use fact checkers were removed, and the sole requirement placed on site operators was to display a notice saying how they decide what to show people, and if they use fact checkers. Basically asking Facebook to explain the algorithm behind their news-feed.

    That was all removed on 5/10/18, replaced with the standard government cop-out: establishing a committee to study the problem, write a report and draft legislation. This was further watered down on 5/25/18, removing all mention of legislation, leaving only the weakest possible version of the bill - to study the problem, and to suggest some actions.

    All these version of the bill can be seen on the California Legislative Information web site. You can look at the various version of the bill with the drop-down menu
    Metabunk 2018-07-01 17-27-15.

    Each version of the text shows the changes from the previous version in red and struck through, like:
    Metabunk 2018-07-01 17-29-11.

    Proposed legislation is not an action of the Government until it's signed into law. It's often just reflecting the desires of one person, and it often starts out badly formed, and impossible to pass. Pan's bill was badly written from the start, with vague language. The first version (putting notices of truefulness on posts) was so obviously unworkable that it was replaced with the version requiring notices. This went further in the legislative process, getting a report from the Senate Judiciary committee on 05/07/18
    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1424# (also attached) which quite clearly identifies additional problems with the bill, as well as objections from sources like the California Newspaper Publishers Association. For example:
    The vagueness of the plan is discussed (remember this is the version that's already watered down from the first attempt that prompted the apocalyptic post from Geoengineering Watch)
    The full analysis is worth reading, but concludes:
    So no, it's not a censorship bill, not even close. There's nothing specific about vaccines in there (and there never was). The legislature in fact shows great thoughtfulness in how Pan's clumsy attempt was handled. It seems like he meant well, but given the uncertainty and rapid development of the problem, it's was never going to be something that could be solved by heavy handed legislation.

    Even at its worst, the legislation was nothing like "policing the information that's spread via social media and other platforms to determine whether or not it's quote true". Right now it's nothing - do a study, report back end of 2019. By then everything will have changed again.

    And it's not even passed yet.

    UPDATE: Vetoed by Governor Gerry Brown as not necessary.
    Metabunk 2018-09-21 01-47-04.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 21, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Bill Statler

    Bill Statler Member

    The author of this bill, Senator Richard Pan, was also co-author of California SB 277, which eliminated the personal belief exemption for vaccinations. So I assume that's why the anti-vaxxers saw this as a censorship bill -- and I do suspect that anti-vax misinformation was central to Pan's reasons for drafting the bill.

    The original version of SB 1424 was really awful.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Quite possibly, this video is linked from the prepper site linked above:

    Source: https://youtu.be/kQoSeUNgz0Q

    It's actually about SB277 (requiring vaccines for schoolchildren) but the PrepForThat article makes it appear as if it's for the social media fact checking bill (SB-1424)

    Once could certainly see how anti-vaccine folk would be suspicious though. Dane Wigington (of Geoengineering Watch) is also anti-vaccine, but he's also a promoter of the chemtrail theory, so is concerned he won't be able to talk about that. But I suspect it's more just another sign of "the runaway juggernaut of insanity that's the military-industrial complex spiraling completely out of control while the planet goes down in flames".

    Yes, which is why it was largely re-written before it even got committee review. There's a lot of videos that attack the bill based on the original text. Most seem to have been uploaded 2 months ago.

    But even those grossly misrepresent the content of the bill - which does not create government fact checker, just requires social companies to use them and flag "false" stories. It was all terribly imprecise language though with ridiculously overreaching definitions, and would have been thrown out in court (not that it had any chance of becoming law).
  4. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Great topic.
    A viewpoint could also be......what percentage of the readers with an extreme anti gov't bias -- would be ?
    And how many people ( % ) are automatically eliminated who would..... "about face" to any gov't sponsored data or stories ?

    Compared to those that trust what's in the OP's bill.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
  5. Stan

    Stan New Member

    Do you have a source link to the CNPA quote: "As a practical matter,..."?
    And it appears that the bill has passed.
  6. Stan

    Stan New Member

    One interesting item is that the review board is to be PRIVATELY funded. Such funding could take more than 3 years to acquire before the bill would be repealed from lack of funding. And of course, the 1 year study will only start once such funding is available.
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just the linked PDF, presumably from material the CNPA submitted to the committee.

    In a slight different form, as you note now requiring private funding before it gets started.
    I don't really see how that would work. Who is going to fund such an open ended study? I'm not really familiar with private funding provision in California state bills, but it seems like a way of just passing something largely symbolic without any impact to the state, or any real chance of it doing anything.
  8. Stan

    Stan New Member

    Who would fund such a study is the crucial question. Someone who clearly has an agenda and wants the results to fall a specific way would be the most likely candidate. Especially when the bill has no specification or qualification requirements as to who the 'members' would be. The way it's worded is extremely nebulous and seems very open for corruption. I.e., "I will fund it but you have to put my people on it."
    This would seem to be a symbolic bill but it's been established for decades especially in the regulatory industry, that " As California goes, the rest of the country follows." A particularly biased panel could derive a particularly biased report and with the weight of government behind it, it could have the potential to bias the entire issue for a long time to come. Many regulations come out of just such poorly articulated studies. I for one would be very curious to see who does fund it (if it does get it) and to discover any relationship between them and the (somehow) chosen panel members.
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Let's wait and see. For now the original claim is debunked, and the bill itself, though passed, does nothing other than possibly do a study if someone wants to pay for it.

    Start a new thread if something new happens.
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    Bill vetoed as unnecessary. Case closed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.