State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-New York City, has introduced S.7568. The legislation, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Anna Kaplan, D-Carle City, creates a cause of action under the state General Obligations Law against anyone who creates or contributes to a condition that endangers the public health or safety by promoting content the person knew is harmful, false or unlawful. That person could be sued by the state Attorney General, a city corporation counsel or a private citizen. The legislation was introduced in late December, but was moved to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 5. State Sen. George Borrello, R-Sunset Bay, is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

The type of posts Hoylman and Kaplan are targeting include:

¯ posts advocating for the use of force, which are directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action;

¯ advocate for self-harm, are directed to incite or produce imminent self-harm; and

Senior campaigner from SumOfUs Flora Rebello Arduini adjusts an installation outside parliament in Westminster in London, Monday, Oct. 25, 2021. A 4-metre-high installation depicting Mark Zuckerberg surfing on a wave of cash was constructed outside parliament, as Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen is due to testify to MPs on how the company puts profits ahead of public safety. The action comes after SumOfUs research revealed Instagram is still awash with posts promoting eating disorders, unproven diet supplements and skin-whitening products. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

¯ false statements of fact or fraudulent medical theory likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.

Under the 1996 Communications Decency Act, digital platform companies have legal protection both for content they carry and for removing postings they deem offensive. The shelter from lawsuits and prosecution applies to social media posts, uploaded videos, user reviews of restaurants or doctors, classified ads — or the underworld of thousands of websites that profit from false and defamatory information on individuals.

Section 230 of the law, which outlines the shield, was enacted when many of the most powerful social media companies didn’t even exist. It allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the behemoths they are today.

Frances Haugen, an ex-Facebook employee and whistleblower, presented a case in October that Facebook’s systems amplify online hate and extremism and fail to protect young users from harmful content. Her previous disclosures have energized legislative and regulatory efforts around the world aimed at cracking down on Big Tech, and she made a series of appearances recently before European lawmakers and officials who are drawing up rules for social media companies.

Facebook and other social media companies use computer algorithms to rank and recommend content. They govern what shows up on users’ news feeds. Haugen’s idea is to remove the protections in cases where dominant content driven by algorithms favors massive engagement by users over public safety.

Meta Platforms, the new name of Facebook’s parent company, has declined to comment on specific legislative proposals. The company has advocated for updated regulations.

“We are a platform for free expression and every day have to make difficult decisions on the balance between giving people voice and limiting harmful content,” Meta said in a statement Wednesday. “It is no surprise Republicans and Democrats often disagree with our decisions – but they also disagree with each other. What we need is a set of updated rules for the internet set by Congress that companies should follow, which is why we’ve been asking for this for nearly three years.”

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has suggested changes that would only give internet platforms legal protection if they can prove that their systems for identifying illegal content are up to snuff. That requirement, however, might be more difficult for smaller tech companies and startups to meet, leading critics to charge that it would ultimately favor Facebook.

Hoylman said his legislation doesn’t violate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because 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.

“Social media websites are no longer a simple host for their users’ content, however,” Hoylman wrote in his legislative justification. “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.”