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.
The only reason they use the word “constitutional” is because they want the conservative supreme court to make a ruling to allow hate speech.
Meanwhile, conservatives also want to ban books about love.
This really has nothing to do with technology though. Quite the contrary. Twitter isn’t technology. It’s a tool for making dark age politics.
Also because they’re fond of pretending that if something they’re doing isn’t expressly forbidden in the constitution, that means it’s VIRTUOUS and must be protected at all costs!
On the other hand, anything that their opponents do that isn’t expressly MANDATED by the constitution is villainy most foul and must be outlawed and penalised with at least a decade of
enslavement that is highly lucrative to the owner donorsimprisonment
Why is anyone calling it X?
The sign still says Twitter, the domain still says Twitter, it’s still Twitter.
I call it Nazi Island
naZisland
I call it X/Twitter/whatever just to add some frustration and negative sentiment to the branding in my own circles. A reminder that the platform’s been poisoned and it isn’t what people should be using.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
“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
It’s the same argument that conservatives use so they will understand.
Did you expect any better of an argument from the type of politician who thinks they’re entitled to this kind of intrusive bullshit?
Removed by mod
Agreed. That said, this argument is never the one to use.
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!
How so is it not intrusive for the government to demand private shit it has no business asking for?
Removed by mod
There is no duty to censor the public square
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.
Removed by mod
The government has made it their business via passing the law. So… ya know…
The government can’t just declare itself just and act with unlimited reach
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.
Is that what they did or did they just create a narrowly defined law for a specific purpose?
It doesn’t matter how narrow a law is if the government has no fucking place making that law
#BoycottMusk
Alright, I’ll have a shower then.
X? The only “X” i recognize is DMX, R.I.P.
“content moderation” is a slimy way to say censorship.
“Leave the richest man on earth alone!” he yelled out, weilding his katana in a reverse grip… for some reason.
Said the person who has never been a moderator or has any clue about moderation.
This is an instance where scanning over someone’s post history might elucidate why they are spewing bullshit. HINT: it’s SOP for that account.
Remember kids, hate speech laws only outlaw speech the state doesn’t like. You know, like McCarthy did.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Yes?
