183
X is suing California over social media content moderation law
(www.engadget.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
183 points (90.3% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
3059 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
“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?
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.
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.
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
None of that is true. Go away if you the only thing you have to contribute is libertarian lies about basic accountability being tyranny.
Lmao why should I go away just because you have nothing except outright lies to defend your demands to terminate basic rights.
Because you have nothing but lies and misunderstandings of basic facts to contribute, neither of which are beneficial to anyone.
Going for the gold medal in projection?
There's no basic right to facilitate stochastic terrorism.
The fact the you bring up shit like "stochastic terrorism" just proves my point. I see no further reason to engage since you're clearly off the deep end
How does asking to see how they moderate their content behind closed doors terminating basic rights? Can you describe which right they're terminating here?
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.
Censorious authoritarians such as yourself are the only ones that can't be left alone
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