A half-dozen companies now control the channels through which most Americans learn anything about power — and their owners have enormous personal stakes in what you see. This statute does not regulate political speech. It regulates the infrastructure that carries it: no owner putting a thumb on the scale, no secret algorithmic suppression, no cross-ownership chokehold, and no hiding who paid for the message.
The channels most people use to learn about power consolidated into a handful of companies — whose owners have vast personal financial and political interests in what the public sees.Check it
An owner could quietly tilt the feed, bury a story, or throttle a viewpoint, and there was no way to prove it and nothing to prove it against.Check it
Algorithms decided what millions saw, with their criteria entirely secret. Manufactured and deceptively edited content spread with no label.Check it
Think tanks pushed positions without disclosing who funded them, platforms amplified content that hurt children, and the powerful used defamation suits to bankrupt critics into silence.Check it
This regulates infrastructure, not content. An independent board (DCAB) with technical expertise reviews whether the channels operate viewpoint-neutrally — it does not police what anyone says.
Owner interference is defined and prohibited, and platform discrimination is proven by a statistical pattern standard — so tilting the scale can finally be shown.
Algorithmic transparency means disclosing categories and criteria, not code. Cross-ownership above the reach threshold triggers divestiture.
Manufactured content and paid advocacy must be labeled, children get a real duty of care, anti-SLAPP protections shield critics, and broadband is a common carrier that can’t throttle traffic.
No independent body with the technical competence to examine how the information infrastructure actually behaved.Check it
The Digital Communications Accountability Board — independent, technically expert, with defined jurisdiction over what it can and cannot review. It examines the infrastructure, never the content of political speech.
Suppression was deniable. Without access to the systems, a pattern of viewpoint discrimination was impossible to establish.Check it
A statistical pattern standard for platform nondiscrimination, and a defined owner non-interference rule with evidence and disclosure requirements. What used to be unprovable is now measurable.
The rules deciding what millions of people saw were entirely hidden, and demands for the source code went nowhere.Check it
Transparency of categories and criteria — not code. You learn what the system optimizes for and how it ranks, without forcing disclosure of trade secrets. Enough to see the tilt; not so much as to seize the machine.
The same interests could control multiple dominant channels at once, and no methodology existed to say when that became too much.Check it
An authoritative aggregate-reach methodology, an effective-control definition, and a cross-ownership prohibition with an 18-month divestiture process. Concentration gets measured and then unwound.
Think tanks and advocacy groups shaped opinion while concealing their funders, and manufactured or deceptively edited media spread unlabeled.Check it
Funding disclosure thresholds for think tanks and advocacy organizations; news-versus-commentary labeling; and mandatory disclosure of manufactured content and deceptive editing. You get to know what you’re looking at and who paid for it.
Platforms optimized engagement into kids and bore no particular duty for the harm that followed.Check it
A minor safety duty of care, with verified-identity requirements built for protecting minors. Children are owed care, not extraction.
The wealthy filed ruinous defamation suits to bankrupt journalists and critics — the point was the cost, not the verdict.Check it
Public-figure defamation standards with defined defenses and anti-SLAPP protections. Litigation stops being a weapon for buying silence.
Platforms claimed the immunity of a neutral host while actively amplifying content through their own algorithms.Check it
Hosting immunity is preserved, but algorithmic amplification carries liability. Choosing to push something is an act — and acts have consequences. And broadband is a common carrier: no throttling, no traffic discrimination.
This is the plain-language version. The binding text is CS-12, which implements Article Ten and Article Eighteen, Section 2 of the Constitution.
This is your country’s law. Help shape the next draft of it.
