Did you know it's illegal to knowingly broadcast false information about a catastrophe, especially if such communications may cause substantial “public harm?”
Public harm includes direct & actual damages to people or property & the diversion of law enforcement or public health & safety authorities from their duties.

Link to FCC rules on FALSE INFORMATION/BROADCAST HOAXES https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/hoaxes

But Elon Musk & X are not regulated by the FCC. So, HOW DO WE STOP THIS?

Hoaxes

The Commission's prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth at Section 73.1217 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217. This rule prohibits broadcast licensees or permittees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if: (1) the licensee knows this information is false; (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm. Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances. For purposes of this rule, "public harm'' must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties. The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A "crime'' is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law. A "catastrophe'' is a disaster or imminent disaster involving a violent or sudden event affecting the public. Complaints alleging violation of this rule should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations & Hearings Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. Complaints should include the call sign and community of license of the station, the date and time of the broadcast(s) in question, and a detailed description of the public harm caused as a result of the broadcast. In addition, if possible, complaints should include a transcript or recording of the broadcast in question.

@spocko Current US allies are watching closely.
@spocko The FCC only has this power over broadcast TV and radio. But maybe they could go after Sinclair, which regularly blasts out Fox News style misinfo over the public airwaves. They have a ton of local stations.
@spocko Mr Musk seems to think that the existence of the freedom to yell 'Fire!' in a public theatre that isn't aflame, is the _only_ true freedom-of-speech.
@spocko Deport him and nationalize his assets
@SteveBologna no, thank you (the first part); you keep him
@spocko then why isn’t Anal Musk in jail?
@CatDragon @spocko because the internet isn’t subject to the same laws as broadcast tv (so he isn’t breaking the law). And republicans won’t agree to any additional regulations, particularly when they benefit from spreading disinformation themselves.
@spocko Once again…Where is DOJ?

@spocko

Leon the #oligarch has a long history of breaking laws and getting away with it. The laws are intended to constrain the people who are governed, not to limit what the #oligarchs can do.

We need to dismantle the #oligarchy by taxing billionaires out of existence.

@spocko IANAL but if X is an internet company incorporated in the United States all laws are applicable to them. since there's at least evidence that the CEO is spreading that misinformation himself there's enough to at least log complaints to FCC FCE and FTC though usually they pay attention if it is organizations filing the complaint. flooding their websites with citizen complaints should be a viable tactic to get the ball rolling.

@blogdiva @spocko social media companies aren’t broadcasters though (according to the government). The law won’t apply to them.

I think this post is meant to encourage us to consider lobbying for a change in how internet companies are regulated. And I agree with that initiative.

@dashrb Dash is correct. The FCC does not regulate social media companies. Even when they do regulate, the RW radio hosts on broadcast radio were rarely subject to any consequences. They knew how to avoid certain words & how to couch their phrasing so that it wouldn't violate FCC regulations. That's why to get the hosts to stop spreading violent rhetoric I started contacting advertisers & suggested that they did not want to associate their brands with these radio hosts.
@blogdiva
@dashrb @blogdiva
My story https://www.spockosbrain.com/about/ My Method worked because the radio stations wanted the advertiser Revenue. Now management could tell the host to modify what they said or lose the advertisers. Now in some cases the hosts did stop using violent rhetoric, in other cases they didn't & the station lost so much money their contract was not renewed.
Musk sued the advertisers & the groups that organized the program to alert them. Musk can lose 1 Billion monthly & still keep going.
About

Brain in a box. Half Human, Half Vulcan. Just want a Piece of the Action. SF, CA, USA, Section 0, 1, 1 Contributor for Digby’s blog Hullabaloo  & Crooks And Liars. Famous for the Spocko M…

Spocko's Brain

@spocko @blogdiva very impressive!

What I fear is that Musk and the Saudi’s didn’t have profit as a primary goal, when buying twitter. It was perhaps more about controlling information flow and defining the “truth”. These things are invaluable, particularly to an oppressive regime such as the Saudi’s, and for an authoritarian such as Musk.

@dashrb dash, that is become very clear especially after he said to the advertisers too, go f*** yourself. First he sued two organizations that contacted the two them they may want to pull their ads. Then he sued the advertisers that pulled their ads. These are not the actions of somebody who is concerned about making money from advertisers. @blogdiva

it doesn't regulate them because of capture; not because they aren't breaking the law. the Federalist Society has so tainted the concept of enforcement with their literalist bullshit that people honestly believe and act like you have to have the crimes describe in detail and check off all the boxes to have any kind of chance of getting it to the court. if there is one thing to learn is that MONEY is what gets you before a court, NOT whether all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed

@spocko @dashrb

many in USGOV been bought by Silicon Valley part and parcel to avoid regulations but there are many laws applicable to not just the corporations but individuals, esp CEOs.

Lena Khan has shown she wants to go after them. Biden didn't want her in the first place because he has made a career of being the capitalists' democrat.

lawyers need to step up and comb the books and start whatever legal proceedings needed to demand and force enforcement. a good start is the FEC

@dashrb @spocko

@blogdiva @spocko I’ve been impressed with Khan so far. She’s awesome!
@spocko Executive action to ban X immediately as a National Security Threat.