She didn't say she was the one to decide.So does Hillary get to decide what is "Misinformation"? Who is the arbiter of truth in this circumstance?
She mentioned civil means. She's thinking of libel there. And Fox was stung by the Dominion suit and Semantec settled its suit with OANN. Fox owner Rupert Murdoch even acknowledged on the stand that the Fox on-air people lied. They made a show of repentance after the suit, but their content now seems like they're treating even very large settlements simply as the cost of doing business. They make too much money for even billion dollar settlements to discourage them.
Criminal libel used to be a thing. She didn't indicate -- at least in that clip -- if that's what she's thinking of. If money damages don't deter lying, what would? What has happened this election is that it's very difficult to use libel laws when groups are involved. Libel has always been an individual issue. The Haitians in Springfield have been model citizens but they currently have no recourse against Vance and Trump etc spreading malicious stories about them. What is the legal remedy when there is no cost for harmful behavior?