- cross-posted to:
- hakendran@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- hakendran@feddit.de
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Holy strawman, Batman! Nobody said anything even remotely approaching that.
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.
Pretending that Ashli Babbitt was the only one killed is so ridiculous as to be tantamount to pro-insurrection propaganda.
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.
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.
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