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.

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.

  • bstix@feddit.dkEnglish
    91·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      1 year ago

      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 donors imprisonment

  • redders@lemmy.worldEnglish
    42·
    1 year ago

    Why is anyone calling it X?

    The sign still says Twitter, the domain still says Twitter, it’s still Twitter.

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    38·
    1 year ago

    “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

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Did you expect any better of an argument from the type of politician who thinks they’re entitled to this kind of intrusive bullshit?

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
            10·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.worldEnglish
                6·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

              • CmdrShepardEnglish
                5·
                1 year ago

                Is that what they did or did they just create a narrowly defined law for a specific purpose?

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            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!

  • Throwaway@lemm.eeEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    Remember kids, hate speech laws only outlaw speech the state doesn’t like. You know, like McCarthy did.

    • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      1 year ago

      “Leave the richest man on earth alone!” he yelled out, weilding his katana in a reverse grip… for some reason.

      • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        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.