262
If Twitter has nothing to hide, then they should have no objection to this bill.
I can’t believe a lawmaker said this with a straight face. This was the same logic to pass the Patriot Act .
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
262 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
59422 readers
2855 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Patriot act, which was passed by lawmakers and which most politicians think is fine.
I really don't see this going well for X. It's highly likely they havent been even collecting the appropriate information on their own process at this point.
They aren’t required to start until this quarter of this year. They’ve missed, at most, nine days of data.
I hope the law runs them into the ground, however.
Opening paragraph from their legal reply brief:
“So you know those magic eight balls?”
It's good we have Elon Musk to think of the people nobody else cares about, who else will stand up for the misogynists, racists, homophobes and Nazis rights to persecute and discriminate minorities.
Keep it up Elon, you got this. 🤣🤣🤣
This is the best summary I could come up with:
X Corp. said that if the court did not block the law, California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful."
"The State of California touts AB 587 as a mere 'transparency measure' under which certain social media companies must make their content moderation policies and statistics publicly available," X's complaint said.
X Corp. alleged that AB 587 violates other laws, including the Dormant Commerce Clause—"failing to restrict its extensive reporting requirements to information about Californians"—and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—which grants platforms immunity from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
The author of AB 587, California assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, released a statement saying that the law "is a pure transparency measure that simply requires companies to be upfront about if and how they are moderating content.
Adam Kovacevich, the CEO of the tech industry policy coalition Chamber of Progress, said that "requiring companies to give their content moderation playbook to scammers and conspiracists is a bad idea."
“Even if you don't like anything about Elon Musk’s leadership of X, it’s clear that requiring tech platforms to publish a detailed blueprint of how to work around content moderators will have negative consequences for users online," Kovacevich said.
The original article contains 774 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good bot!