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.

  • DominusOfMegadeusEnglish
    34•10 months ago

    “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

        • DominusOfMegadeusEnglish
          1•10 months ago

          Agreed. That said, this argument is never the one to use.

          • @[email protected]English
            2•10 months ago

            What do you mean?

            Edit: Oh, you mean “if you have nothing to hide you won’t mind us spying” one? I couldn’t agree more if I tried!

          • @[email protected]English
            9•10 months ago

            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.

              • @[email protected]English
                8•10 months ago

                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.

              • @[email protected]English
                7•10 months ago

                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.

              • @[email protected]English
                5•10 months ago

                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?

                  • @[email protected]English
                    3•10 months ago

                    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.

              • @[email protected]English
                4•10 months ago

                Is that what they did or did they just create a narrowly defined law for a specific purpose?