Since 1984, the media have been subject to the law on the right to rectification (Organic Law 2/1984, of March 26). This law made sense as it was at that time, when social networks did not exist and possible false news, hoaxes and half-truths were published by certain media outlets. Today, however, the photo is very different. Hoaxes are born, grow and are normally reproduced on social networks and do not come from the media, but from individual users.

It could give the impression that these profiles published hoaxes with total impunity, beyond criticism from their followers and/or other users of the platform. But that’s over. From now on, this rectification law will also apply to influencers.

The context. The Council of Ministers has approved the modification of the right of rectification law so that it affects, in addition to the media, “specially relevant” users. From the Government they consider, according to El Paísthat a user of “special relevance” is one with more than 100,000 followers on a social network or more than 200,000 among all the platforms on which they have a presence. According to Félix Bolaños, Minister of the Presidency, at a press conference:

“These are those users who disseminate information and other content through these platforms and who, due to the number of followers they have, enjoy a reach and impact comparable to that of traditional media, configuring themselves as authentic shapers.” of communication and public opinion; and that, therefore, they must be subject to the possibility of having their contents rectified.”

Image | Magnus Mueller

What does this law consist of? Let’s think about a media that publishes information about Pepito that, in the end, turns out to be not entirely accurate. Pepito has the possibility, as long as this information affects him, to rectify it within seven calendar days after publication. The rectification must be sent to the director of the media, be limited to specific facts (without giving opinions) and its length cannot substantially exceed that of the original information, unless necessary.

If the requirements are met, the media “must publish or disseminate the rectification in its entirety, within three days following its receipt, with relevance similar to that in which the information being rectified was published or disseminated, without comments or apostilles.” “. The idea, of course, is that the rectification has the same scope as the original publication with the aim of correcting the error.

The role of platforms. Previously, it was necessary to send the rectification to the director of the media (a requirement that has been eliminated in this modification along with the requirement of not being able to give opinions that we mentioned previously, by the way). That was as easy as sending a certified letter. In social networks, however, there are several problems:

1. It is possible that the affected user does not have an account on the social network in which the information was disseminated and, therefore, does not have the means to contact the sender of the information.
2. The account that posted the false information may not have any form of contact.
3. There may be no way to verify that the sender of the hoax has received the information correctly.

Thus, the platforms will have to have “an easily visible and accessible mechanism, which allows the applicant, whether or not he is a user of the platform in question, to have a tool that ensures the direct and immediate referral of the rectification, as well as the constancy of reception and monitoring of the process”.

Featured image | Marten Bjork in Unsplash

In techopiniones | A magazine had been publishing articles written by AI using fake editors for months. They have been discovered, of course