all 7 comments

[–]RandomCollection 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems like both California and Twitter are both against free speech.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Taking up the mantle, Musk’s X has now mounted a robust legal challenge against the law. Bolstering their claim, they’ve enlisted Floyd Abrams, a renowned First Amendment lawyer, to represent them, and have gone with a strong compelled speech argument.

According to the lawsuit, filed by X, AB 587, promoted by the State of California as a “transparency” measure for social media companies, is argued to infringe on constitutional free speech rights. The complaint claims it forces companies like X into involuntary speech and meddles in their editorial decisions. The argument points out that while the law mandates companies to disclose their content moderation policies, its real intention is to coerce these platforms into eradicating content the state finds problematic. This perspective is supported by legislative documents and statements from the law’s creators, emphasizing the objective to combat “divisive content” and promote “better corporate citizens.” Essentially, critics believe the primary aim of AB 587 is to pressure platforms into eliminating government-disapproved content.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

meddles in their editorial decisions

That part is another can of worms entirely, that they apparently don't want to be opened. If they want to make "editorial decisions" over the content on their platform, then they're publishers and are responsible for what's on it, which then paves the way for a metric fuckton of censorship-oriented measures.

The proper 'free speech' argument here is for them to stick to a platform role, give users the tools to deal with whatever content they deem "bad" and fuck off with the 'editorializing' as if they were the ones to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.

But of course they don't want that. They just want themselves to be the holders of the censorship keys and not an outside entity... unless they can buy it as well.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Good point. Because if they're a publisher the Section 230 liability protections are also out the window. Schrodinger's social media.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, the only reason why this whole thing is even a thing in the first place is because they want to control and manipulate the content on their platforms, and not just provide a "public square" service, but they don't want to be held liable either so... they make up bullshit that's not based in any kind of reality but makes people react more or less instinctively.

They're framing their attempts at remaining non-liable for anything as if they were 'fighting for free speech' when they're doing the exact opposite: fighting to take control over speech themselves.

Musk didn't buy Twitter to defend free speech and he's not doing this to defend free speech either. This is just another nonsensical narrative they try to make people believe, so they don't complain or even notice when they get screwed even harder, democratic party style.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everything you say about Musk may be true but it's much bigger than this, look at the whole censorship and cancel culture scourge. Musk is suing ADL for defamation because it's affecting his ability to get advertisers but Twitter/X isn't the only one sitting beneath that Damocles sword. They should all team up with law centers like America First Legal that's doing FOIA lawsuits on the pandemic policies and Hunter Biden; and the Free America Law Center that's providing legal counsel to Amos Freeman. We're starting to see some progress on these fronts and every win is a building block for the next. Everyone needs a reminder that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are still the law of the land, despite the NM Governor's attempt to unilaterally decide otherwise.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh I'm not saying that he shouldn't do this and more, and joining up with the others would be nice too of course. Opposing the "lawmaker" version of this bullshit is absolutely necessary and if they do it for the wrong reasons, doesn't matter right now.

If they manage to fuck this thing up, then they'll become the issue since it's their goal, but that'll be a matter for when that moment comes. Let the power-hungry authoritarians fight each other if they want, it's just as when they get us to fight each other but the other way around for once.