X, the social media company previously known as Twitter, is suing the state of California over a law that requires companies to disclose details about their content moderation practices.
X is suing California over social media content moderation law::X, the social media company previously known as Twitter, is suing the state of California over a law that requires companies to disclose details about their content moderation practices.
“If @X has nothing to hide, then they should have no objection to this bill,” Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, who wrote AB 587, said in response to X’s lawsuit.”
The government breaks out absolute worst argument they could
There's nothing intrusive about asking for transparency from companies doing a piss poor job limiting the spread of hate and lies while claiming that their efforts are herculean in effort as well as effectiveness.
It's not "private shit it has no business asking for", it's proof that social media platforms are upholding the special duties that come with the special privileges being the "public square" of the internet.
Yes there is, you can go to Speakers Corner, a literal public square, and talk about all kinds of nonsense, but if you bust out the Nazi regalia you'll be shut down quick sharp by the old bill.
Yeah there is. It's called public safety. The January 6th attempted coup was (poorly, but still) planned on Twitter, Facebook and Parler. If those three had been better moderated when it comes to hate speech and misinformation, the 9 people who died as a result of it would probably be alive today.
Lmao Jesus, if one pointless riot is your reasoning that everyone should be monitored and censored, you just simply don't believe in basic rights. Also nice falsely inflated death count. 1=/=9
First of all, there was very much an explicit point of that insurrection and it was far from an isolated event. Don't play even more ignorant than you actually are.
is your reasoning
No, it's called an example. Do you know what an example is or do I have to explain THAT incredibly obvious thing to you as well?
everyone should be monitored and censored
Holy strawman, Batman! Nobody said anything even remotely approaching that.
you just simply don't believe in basic rights
Of course I do, you colossal idiot, I just don't think it's a good idea to provide a platform for use as a propaganda and recruitment tool of hate groups and grifters.
nice falsely inflated death count. 1=/=9
Pretending that Ashli Babbitt was the only one killed is so ridiculous as to be tantamount to pro-insurrection propaganda.
What is precisely unlimited about this? Should companies be able to keep whatever they want behind the curtain and we aren't allowed to ask what it is?
You said that government business is whatever the government passes laws about, which literally gives the government unlimited justification to do anything and everything because, by definition, it's the proper business of government under that standard.
It's the job of the government to inspect and regulate businesses and this is a reasonable and frankly way overdue example of them doing exactly that. Nothing unreasonable about it and calling it unlimited intrusion or whatever makes you look like the dumbest of libertarians, which is REALLY saying something.
No, it isn't the purpose of government to just make demands of private businesses. It's absolutely unreasonable for the government to do so with intent to censor
Governments make demands of private businesses all the time with things like workers rights, safety regulations, emissions standards, etc. We don't live in a libertarian no holds barred corporate wonderland and we're better for it as these businesses have long proved they can't be trusted if left to their own devices.