https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/29/24018645/x-twitter-elon-musk-content-moderation-law-california-decision

Your thoughts?

Personally I feel that it should be none of the government's business how a private company wants to moderate the content on their platform. If X wants to allow "hate speech" on their site, then it is too bad for the government.

This is not to mention whether something is hate speech is highly subjective. What might appear to be hate speech to the government might not be hate speech to X.

I think there's two separate issues. One is a state putting onerous regulatory burdens on a corporation that are capricious and arbitrary, serving only to impede them and not any legitimate purpose. They have no actual way to utilize that data, nothing to compare it to, nor any compelling interest to serve by having it. Any interests could be served in a non-obstructive manner by just asking them, whether by invitation or testimony. The other issue is the free speech objection, a government inserting itself into the controls of social media and the complexities and grey area of what constitutes a public square and what doesn't, the unresolved questions that California is only willing to intrude upon when it serves their partisan interests, which is no recipe for respecting free expression.

Sounds like Shubb's feelings get hurt by "hate speech", so he uses the power of his office to force X to comply.

For the "hate speech" that isn't illegal, it shouldn't matter whether companies allow it or not. It's none of the government's business to demand that private companies moderate it.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Dec 29 2023 07:56pm

The part of governments that want major censorship on important things, major social and other close to full news outlet & media control, who want to own all the platforms to shut people down who speak the truth, while at the same time calling themselves "democratic" or working for democracies or through democratic principles can f*** right off. No you don't. Tyvm

This post was edited by TidsL on Dec 29 2023 08:20pm

When they owned the **** out of the social media platforms through whatever leverage they had,.and censored all kinds of information around covid, both true and false info got censored, but it doesn't matters people who were saying true things got silenced too and they fucking knew it, - then the argument was " ooh it's private companies they can do what they want" even though it's rather owned by corporations and conglomerates so large it's difficult to see where they end and the (some) government's begin...


But now what Elon bought up twitter - oh Now it's a problem.

Twitter still got plenty room for improvement, but go Elon & his work force. Much respect.. I enjoy following the space X development a lot.

This post was edited by TidsL on Dec 29 2023 08:21pm

Just reading the article, I don't see how a law just saying you have to disclose how you're moderating is in any way a violation of free speech.

That's Musk's argument, that the law in question violates the 1st, but it's not my argument. My argument is that government has no business demanding private companies to do things like that.