X is Suing California Over Social Media Content Moderation Law
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
[SEE ALSO: X sues Calif. to avoid revealing how it makes "controversial" content decisions]
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. The law, known as AB 587, requires social media companies to publish information about their handling of hate speech, extremism, misinformation and other issues, as well as details about internal moderation processes.
Lawyers for X argue that the law is unconstitutional and will lead to censorship. It “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in the lawsuit. “The true intent of AB 587 is to pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”
[...] At the same time, AB 587's backers have said it’s necessary to increase the transparency of major platforms. “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.
X Seems To Be Slipping Unlabeled Ads Into People's Feeds
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
X, the company formerly known as Twitter, may not be labeling its ads properly, putting it at risk of — once again — running afoul of the FTC. There have been numerous reports over the last several days of ads appearing in users’ timelines without being labeled as such, according to TechCrunch, which was first to report on the stealth ads.
[...] While the unlabeled ads have irked users, who may mistakenly believe the platform is showing posts from accounts they don’t follow in their following timeline, the issue also risks stirring up more regulatory trouble with the FTC. Nandini Jammi, co-founder of watchdog group Check My Ads, has been sharing examples on her Twitter account over the past couple days. The nonprofit group is tracking the issue and encouraging X users to report any examples they find.
It’s unclear if the unlabeled ads are the result of a bug or an intentional change by the company. X, which no longer has a functioning communications department, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
(Score: 1, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Tuesday September 12 2023, @01:43PM (12 children)
"It’s unclear if the unlabeled ads are the result of a bug or an intentional change by the company. X, which no longer has a functioning communications department, didn’t respond to a request for comment."
Maybe they just choose not to communicate with entities that spread hate speech and disinformation about their company.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Freeman on Tuesday September 12 2023, @02:42PM
Wait, they don't reply back with a poop emoji anymore? What is the world coming to?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 12 2023, @06:07PM (10 children)
What is this, a reverse "corporations are people" argument? Now you can make hate speech against a company?
(Setting aside for a moment that "hate speech" is not a legal thing in the US, but just in this case California, because California gonna California.)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 12 2023, @08:53PM (9 children)
It's part of the same intentionally bullshit linguistic backslide as calling lies "gaslighting" because gaslighting is worse and crueler. Your enemies cannot be merely wrong, they must be evil and shameless.
Merely "insulting the good character of a website" would not be worthy of foam gushing from one's mouth, right?
So those awful Anti-Defamation League monsters have to be doing hate speech when they tell the CocaCola corporation that their ads are likely to appear under a post by a user named "@GasTheJews" and that's not a brand image they want.
My guess here is that the AC made "Elon Musk is a genius, saving the planet" their whole personality 5 years ago when it was cooler, and is incapable of admitting they were wrong
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @01:51AM (8 children)
Yes. I would consider that hate speech, if the ADL actually does that. It's bigotry against the platform.
(Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 13 2023, @04:03AM (7 children)
Since words apparently have literally no meaning anymore
ndkjfn swjkklds awen z
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Tork on Wednesday September 13 2023, @05:15AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @12:17PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @12:24PM (4 children)
Hate speech started there. And for the value add, consider a typical definition of hate speech:
Here, the social group is "companies that do social media" (category "others"). And Twitter is denigrated because they aren't doing the latest silly virtue signaling, here, censorship of its users for ad placement. It checks the boxes.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 13 2023, @02:28PM (3 children)
Does it hurt?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @09:44PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday September 14 2023, @02:28PM (1 child)
Reaching that fucking hard? I'd think so.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 15 2023, @02:22AM
The real solution is simply for our attention to go elsewhere, to ignore problems that Twitter can't fix.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday September 12 2023, @01:56PM (18 children)
AB 587 Full Text https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB587 [ca.gov]
Nothing there stands out as a red flag for me, but it opens up a bucket of legal possibilities when combined with California's Hate speech law, California Penal Code section 422.6 [ca.gov]. It's fidgety because, in CA, Hate speech can be prosecuted as a standalone offense or as an enhancement to another offense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:15PM (13 children)
Nothing stands out when the government decides to get into having "certain" speech reported?
It only takes one different administration to decide what "misinformation" means, how any of this should be prosecuted, and where this data "should be used" against the population.
While everyone wants everyone else to be nicey pants to each other, there are zero requirements by law and never should be.
I believe it should scare the crap out of everyone that the general government wants to get into this game.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Ox0000 on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:30PM (12 children)
You mean "Alternative Facts [wikipedia.org]"? An administration that uses alternative facts? You mean, blatant lies? Things that can easily be verified as being untruths?
The bill is not dictating that this or that gets censored. What it does do is that it requires that the content moderation policy be disclosed/published/made available.
Now if you don't want to disclose that because it would show you're a rather unsavory organization, then that says quite enough about the organization. But it would call you out on it...
Can you show me where it says this?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hopdevil on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:37PM (2 children)
Who decides what is or isn't an "unsavory organization"? Whoever is in power at the time?
This bill alone can seem innocuous, but it is one but of a thousand cuts used to push private entities to censor for them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Ox0000 on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:54PM
The point is not about deciding whether or not something is or isn't unsavory. That's not part of this bill. The point is that they have to make the rules they apply clear.
Everyone can have their own line that they draw in the sand saying "if you do X, then I consider you unsavory" and frankly, I don't care where everyone draws that line for themselves. That's their own thing and none of my business.
But those who protest a tad bit too much about making that public usually have something to hide. And they want to hide it because they know where everyone else's line is and that they are relatively far ahead of that line.
It's a bit of a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". If they are confident in their own "savoriness", let them declare it... be big boys!
(Score: 4, Informative) by epitaxial on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:58PM
The social media company you dullard. The government is simply asking the companies for their policies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Tuesday September 12 2023, @07:08PM (5 children)
Nice strawman. I said nothing about whatever it is you're raging about.
I stand by what I said, and I'll say it again.
While everyone wants everyone else to be nicey pants to each other, there are zero requirements by law and never should be.
I believe it should scare the crap out of everyone that the general government wants to get into this game.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 14 2023, @05:49PM (3 children)
Yeah, it's a slippery slope!
Before long the government will get into the game of requiring disclosure for all sorts of unsavory practices. Can you imagine what would happen if food manufacturers were required to disclose what they put in our food or if heavy industry was required to tell us what poison they are dumping into the local river! The humanity!!!!
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Thursday September 14 2023, @07:21PM (2 children)
I guess I don't see the similarities between people running their mouths at each other and companies physically poisoning the masses.
I would certainly argue that if a company is say, refining oil, that the emissions should be monitored for the health and safety of folks. I'm don't believe the hot air coming out of peoples mouths is the same.
While the constitution of the United States does protect people running their mouths at each other and saying idiotic things and arguing over stupid crap, it doesn't protect poisoning to kill; at least not the last time I checked.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 14 2023, @07:35PM (1 child)
Those are counter examples to the claim that the government can't force companies to disclose stuff because of the first amendment.
Claims such as:
Now, if we want to have a discussion about the reasonableness of these particular disclosure requirements then I might even agree with you that they are unreasonable and therefore this is a bad law.
What I don't like is starting out with false premises.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Thursday September 14 2023, @09:42PM
I didn't realize starting out with the First Amendment was a false premise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2023, @06:16PM
Don't give the government unnecessary reason to act.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @12:29PM (2 children)
I find it interesting how you make the argument for the previous poster. Rule of thumb here, when considering a law, ask yourself what happens when the scary people get in charge? Because that happens. A law that might appear to make sense when the right people are in charge, may be seen as clueless and dangerous when those people no longer are.
That's an implied power. A court might be able to overturn it, but it's better if the law just doesn't exist in the first place so that government's ability to conveniently redefine things doesn't result in actual problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @11:45PM (1 child)
>That's an implied power. A court might be able to overturn it, but it's better if the law just doesn't exist in the first place so that government's ability to conveniently redefine things doesn't result in actual problems.
Because this (hypothetically - and you are offering a hypothetical in your comment) can happen to any law, you are by extensions arguing that we should make zero new laws.
That's madness and a complete rejection of reality.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 14 2023, @04:40AM
It's not hypothetical once you look at history of law. There should be a compelling need for that law, no matter who is in charge. That is, the need is great enough, that if Hitler gets elected (a thing which actually happened!), then you need Hitler to have this power. We don't have that here with this insanity. Further, if all you can do is come up with laws this pathetic, then I'm fine with zero new laws. It's better than blowing up society because something must be done.
I remain amused/bemused by delusional people lecturing me about reality. You demonstrate here that you can't get how law this bad could go wrong so why should the rest of us care what you think reality is or why that shouldn't be rejected?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @06:51PM (3 children)
"Hate speech" is such a bullshit run around of the 1st Amendment, which explicitly states "no law". To legally regulate speech, you must amend the constitution. X(twitter) is for your entertainment, a private company. They have no monopoly. There is no right to regulate whatever they do or why they do it. I hope they win the lawsuit. The regs are a clear violation
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @11:26PM (2 children)
Troll
Why does the truth get downmodded so much around here? Is it the presentation? Does it have bad breath?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @12:17AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @08:12PM
The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan is a real conspiracy involving the European ruling class and the international bankers. The movement was handsomely funded by famous international bankers including Warburg and Rothschild and eagerly embraced by European royalty. There’s no denying it.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 12 2023, @02:36PM (85 children)
Social media companies and the D party were in bed together, stifling constitutionally protected speech for years. And, that is exactly why Musk ran off at the mouth, trapping himself into buying Twitter.
AB 587 will merely formalize the pre-existing agreements between Dems, government, and social media to stifle constitutionally protected speech.
We should ask ourselves why social media only wants to censor certain subjects? They make no effort to silence UFO nuts. Little if any effort to silence alternative medicines (acupuncture, dietary supplements, etc). Many conspiracy theories have open microphones, so long as they don't espouse Nazism. There is a helluva lot of "misinformation" published on social media, that Dems simply don't care about.
All they care about are consevative views and values, and government's power to declare "emergencies" to shut people up.
How many have been following Governor Grisham's adventures in canceling the Constitution of the United States? https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/10/politics/new-mexico-gun-violence-michelle-lujan-grisham/index.html [cnn.com] Even people who agree with her goals are roasting her for trying to cancel the Constitution.
And, California wants to follow a similar path. "We're not canceling the 1st Amendment, we just don't want anyone saying things we don't like!"
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @02:44PM (19 children)
The fuck are you talking about? Social media - and television and radio for that matter - is a shitfest of toxic masculinity, stereotypes, religious nonsense and conspiracy theories that all lean right.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @03:07PM (3 children)
In your liberal mind's view. In my neutral view, most media is saturated by liberalism. Few media companies are conservative-leaning, and none are neutral.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @05:45PM
If the domestic lot disappoints, you might try Al Jazeera [aljazeera.com].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @06:34PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday September 12 2023, @09:43PM
The even bigger defamation suit is still on the way from Smartmatic.
If a lazy person with no education can cross the border and take your job, we need to upgrade your job skills.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday September 12 2023, @03:16PM (14 children)
Lets "AB587" that comment, by having you provide a definition of those terms, LOL. That's literally the purpose of the bill.
I will agree with respect to "religious nonsense" the "Church of the Current Thing" people have way too much control and power and their most devout members are so incredibly annoying.
(Score: 5, Touché) by epitaxial on Tuesday September 12 2023, @03:29PM (9 children)
1) The election was stolen
2) Vaccines don't work
3) Guns make me feel safer and enlarge my penis
4) I want to run over protestors blocking roads, but only if they're liberals. Trump supporters blocking the road to Mar A Lago is an exception
5) Freedom of religion. But only if it's white Christian Jesus. Let me know when someone can unroll a prayer mat on the 50 yard line and pray toward Mecca at a football game
6) My body my choice! Void if you mean abortion or cannabis
7) I want my employer to be able to fire anyone for any reason. Help Mr. DeSantis! I was fired for not wearing a mask at work!
Need any more?
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday September 12 2023, @09:52PM (8 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @11:26PM (7 children)
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @01:55AM (6 children)
And my eyes shoot rays that can cut through steel.
The right didn't force California to pass bad law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @02:43AM (5 children)
in order to maintain that fantasy you have had to stoop to saying plea-deals don't count as well as a few other movements of the goal posts. the right didn't force you to steel yourself against reality, but admittedly their behavior hasn't left you with many alternatives.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @03:35AM (4 children)
I find it interesting that you choose to tilt at that windmill next. You can talk all you want about reality, but you're just not getting it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @08:18PM (3 children)
You know, I think we need leftist sh*tbags out of our country. Personally - and I thoroughly doubt I'm alone in feeling this way - I'm not willing to trade our culture for the entire lot of these filthy, demonic vermin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @08:28PM
Is that the culture where you freed the slaves, or is that the culture where you want statues of slave owners on every street corner?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @11:51PM
Oh, "leftist shitbags" are now included as targets for the 14 words?
You lot don't really do yourselves any favors, you know that right?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 17 2023, @12:46AM
Given that your culture has spammed dumb messages all over SoylentNews, and the filthy, demonic vermin culture has not, I'm feeling the trade probably would be pretty good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @06:44PM (3 children)
Well I'm not fucking "moderating" content unlike certain "Free Speech" platforms. You either moderate - and own the consequences- or you don't moderate shit. If sites perform moderation then they sink or swim in the shitfest that ensues. And with chatbots all these platforms are turning into mush. Real users can't be bothered arguing a point just to see it spring up again, and again, and again.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday September 12 2023, @10:25PM (2 children)
When I read something like this, I have to wonder. How can you not see that you're part of the problem? You're not a "real user", you're that point that keeps spring up "again, and again, and again"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @08:20PM (1 child)
When a person insists that reality is just as he wants/believes it to be rather than what it actually is, it is often a sign that an egregore is using him to eventuate an artificial reality to be controlled by it. The only way to prevent genocidal mass migration is to either forcibly disempower moronic "progressives", or upgrade them morally, educationally, and if necessary genetically until they are no longer sufficiently brain-dead to function as useful idiots for the overclass.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @09:52PM
Like:
I rest my case.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by epitaxial on Tuesday September 12 2023, @02:47PM (8 children)
Sources please.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 12 2023, @03:10PM (3 children)
Its literally in the bill. I don't know how you can get more formalized than a long description of annual report topics submitted to the attorney general etc etc.
Followed by a long list of constitutionally protected speech in sections 3A thru 3E
(Score: 3, Touché) by epitaxial on Tuesday September 12 2023, @03:21PM
The Bill says this? formalize the pre-existing agreements between Dems, government, and social media to stifle constitutionally protected speech
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @03:54PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @08:24PM
We can no longer look to politicians and bureaucrats to save us; they are prostitutes by training and (usually) by preference. They always follow the money - if they don't, they lose - and are thus far more likely to deliver us to the bankers on a platter than save us from them.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:05PM (2 children)
A simple search would suffice.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=government+collusion+to+stifle+constitutionally+protected+speech&ia=web [duckduckgo.com]
I'll post a few of the links returned.
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-speech-where-outrage-opinion-1768801 [newsweek.com]
https://brownstone.org/articles/government-big-tech-colluded-usurp-constitutional-rights/ [brownstone.org]
https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-lawsuit-injunction-148c1cd43f88a0284d5a3c53fd333727 [apnews.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/politics/compelled-speech-first-amendment.html [nytimes.com] (paywall)
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/lawsuit-rfk-jr-chd-biden-free-speech/ [childrenshealthdefense.org]
To summarize, progressives and big tech have had informal agreements in place for at least 8 years, probably longer, to stifle any speech that they don't approve of.
Silly minded people think that progressives and the media are on their side. But, wait for the day when those silly minded people have ideas that don't mesh with government and the media. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth on a Biblical scale.
As I say, this bill would merely formalize the working relationship that progressive officials already have with social media.
Oh, wait - should I maybe mention how deeply police forces have their penises inserted into social media? Case after case is "solved" by demanding information from Facefook and other social media, entirely without a warrant.
Government surveillance is government surveillance, no matter that social media pays for all the work involved.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @06:00PM (1 child)
how is this offtopic when you literally just asked him for fucking sources for what he was talking about
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 12 2023, @07:48PM
Umhh....you're mixing things up. Most moderation isn't done by the folks who asked the question that was replied to. But off-topic is probably bad moderation in this case.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sigterm on Tuesday September 12 2023, @05:40PM
Here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/business/appeals-court-first-amendment-social-media.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @03:49PM (3 children)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:08PM (2 children)
Yes, we see your door. We're contemplating kicking it in, and going all SWAT on your dumb ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:25PM (1 child)
Is that a threat? Because threats are not nice.
Especially not if you're trying to convince your audience that you're not the violent bunch you've just been accused of being.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @08:29PM
These overclass parasites aren't backing down - they've calculated that you're nothing but a worthless supernumerary herd of sh*t-for-brains cowards who need to go extinct so they can rule forever. It is time to start thinking, like it or not, about non-passive resistance.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ox0000 on Tuesday September 12 2023, @04:17PM (48 children)
If Xitter(1) is such a beacon of free speech, all that is required of it is transparency in terms of what it allows and doesn't allow on its platform. Twitter can just as easily respond with a description of their comment moderation practices along the lines of "anything goes, we do not moderate" (as long as it adheres to that in practice then). If it does moderate, why is it bad to ask "how" do you moderate? I'm sure Xitter _wants_ to be seen as a responsible actor, no? And responsible actors put policies in place so that they have a playbook to execute, rather than have to make shit up in the heat of the moment. That's what adults do. On top of that, adults like to interact with other adults, not with irresponsible children, but I'll come back to that in a bit.
I fear you're completely missing the point about why Xitter doesn't want to explain these details: Xitter wants to be able to do whatever the fuck it wants whenever the fuck it wants it. To censor what it wants and not censor what it wants without anyone calling it out on its own bullshit or capriciousness. If Xitter writes down "we do not allow hatespeech" (and who would be against that? Are you arguing for /more/ hatespeech?), then it would need to define that and be consistent. It would also have to be consistent in its actions on that and ban the idiots who spew that type of nonsense.
The point is: Xitter does not want to do that, it wants to be able to do whatever the capricious petulant spoiled child of an apartheid-era mine owner feels like doing at this right fucking moment without having to justify their actions to anyone, or themselves (the latter really being what this boils down to). Xitter wants absolute power for itself. It wants to operate in a world where it is the supreme ruler in which no-one challenges it.
Now it can want that, but then it shouldn't bitch and moan about other actors telling it "we don't think you're a set of responsible adults and choose not to do business with you".
This has got _nothing_ to do with any kind of culture war you're trying to instigate or dream up; it's about a corporation that does not have your best interests at heart trying to put you in front of its cart to let them fuck you even harder, all with your own cooperation. Xitter is not on your side, stop thinking it is!
You know this whole "give me liberty or give me death" that gets thrown around a lot? We're trying to... we're really trying to give you liberty(2), but you have to want to accept our help. Because without it, you'll get that death you seem to be so hungry for, it'll just not be coming from our side...
(1) The X in Xitter is pronounced like a 'sh'
(2) And don't be a petulant child going "waaahhhh, I don't want _your_ kind of liberty" because that's just being childish and disingenuous...
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 12 2023, @05:37PM (47 children)
Being arbitrary and capricious is exactly what property rights allow.
I'm fine with advertisers coming to the annual meeting, asking questions, and going away because they don't get straight answers. It's a different thing to have a government demand that kind of information.
Random thought, though. Rules define games, moderation policies define social media sites, and some of the other platforms are publicly traded. Is that information that rational investors need to know to make decisions? Then it should be published. That wouldn't apply to X.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Ox0000 on Tuesday September 12 2023, @06:55PM
100% agreed, it is completely unacceptable for the government to ask you what you put in those sausages you sell. How dare they ask whether or not I put rat poison in them... I am not a publicly traded butchers. No-one has any business knowing which kind of rat poison I use and at what concentrations.
Now if I were publicly traded, then sure... then they would have standing to ask. I still wouldn't answer but at least then they can walk away with their head up high telling themselves that they've done due diligence...
</sarcasm>
There is nothing wrong with the government asking you how your sausage is made... and that's all they're doing, asking about the how. They're not even asking you to stop putting rat poison in it.
But no... someone doesn't want to have to tell the world "we put rat poison in our sausages"... because they are putting rat poison in their sausages and that doesn't look good.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday September 12 2023, @09:50PM (45 children)
Then why can't X just come out and publicly disclose that to be what they do best and it is their policy?
What's the problem?
There is no such thing as a free speech absolutist. (I've said that before.) Anyone who says so is usually trying to promote something that the vast majority of people find repulsive, disgusting, and possibly dangerous. See: 8chan (oh, wait, it got disappeared because nobody and I mean nobody on the planet would interconnect with it)
If a lazy person with no education can cross the border and take your job, we need to upgrade your job skills.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @02:20AM (44 children)
Why would we be interested in such a position? Except as a prelude to banning speech I don't like, of course. Then it's very interesting. /sarc
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday September 13 2023, @01:49PM (43 children)
Let me put it another say . . .
Elon says he is free speech absolutist. Elon ends up arbitrarily and capriciously banning things he does not like. Thus there is no such thing as a free speech absolutist.
The entire kerfuffle with the state of California could be settled by X publicly telling California in a filing that it's official content moderation policy is to be arbitrary and capricious. Then California should be happy. The public would be informed. Expectations would be fulfilled.
If a lazy person with no education can cross the border and take your job, we need to upgrade your job skills.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2023, @09:46PM (42 children)
I've claimed I'm human. I'm actually a shell script running on a server in the basement of a pizza restaurant. Therefore, there is no such thing as humans.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2023, @10:55PM (41 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 14 2023, @11:42AM (40 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday September 14 2023, @02:44PM (34 children)
Elon arbitrarily and capriciously censoring things is not close to an ideal free speech absolutist.
I don't believe in the mythical free speech absolutist. There is no evidence for the existence of such a fantastical thing.
If a lazy person with no education can cross the border and take your job, we need to upgrade your job skills.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 15 2023, @02:11AM (33 children)
Well, what sort of arbitrary and capricious censoring is he doing these days? When I googled around, I saw a bout of it last December [axios.com], but not much since. That past censorship seems more a protest by demonstrating what happens when the existing tools of censorship that Twitter are used.
What is he censoring now? The allegations that Sears will find its ads near mean online handles seems to indicate to me that there's a great deal of lack of censorship.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday September 15 2023, @02:18PM (18 children)
I could go look back in the history of TechDirt, but I'm not going to.
If a lazy person with no education can cross the border and take your job, we need to upgrade your job skills.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 16 2023, @03:04AM (17 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2023, @04:13AM (16 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 16 2023, @04:49AM (15 children)
It goes the other way too. If you assert something, then back it up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2023, @04:56AM (14 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 16 2023, @05:29AM (13 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2023, @04:25PM (12 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 17 2023, @12:58AM (11 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2023, @02:41AM (10 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 17 2023, @03:34AM (9 children)
Well even if true for you, it's not there for me. And aside from the allegation that Musk Twitter is more compliant with foreign censorship requires than pre-Musk Twitter, I'm not seeing any potential elements from that list.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2023, @04:27PM (8 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 17 2023, @09:28PM (7 children)
In other words, you're not going to deliver.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2023, @09:38PM (6 children)
that ^ was my point. and you demonstrated exactly that... so you're right, i didn't deliver, u did.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 18 2023, @01:37AM (5 children)
Not my research nor my narrative. Really, you're batting zero tonight.
And I'm not asking you to push boulders uphill when I ask for simple stuff like where's the list in your link?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2023, @03:03AM (4 children)
when you finally do figure out how to work a top-ten list on a website make sure you direct your response appropriately, because my mission here was to point out why OP didn't want to send you a link, i'm done.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 18 2023, @05:36AM (3 children)
Where did I give you the impression I hadn't taken your link seriously?
No, you merely claimed you did. We're already beyond "take it seriously" to some imaginary slight.
We call that "projection".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2023, @06:33AM (2 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 18 2023, @12:54PM
The obvious rebuttal here is why should I take some link you've crapped on the internets seriously when you don't?
This is just typical of the bad faith argument I get every week. It would have been less work to put forward a serious argument than to post endlessly about how mean khallow is again.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 20 2023, @06:19AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2023, @03:20PM (13 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 16 2023, @02:57AM (12 children)
I read this story before while I was looking for said discussion. And well, there wasn't a list in the article. At best, it describes an alleged 80% success rate by foreign powers to censor speech. Maybe the list was in a video somewhere?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2023, @04:08AM (11 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 16 2023, @05:29AM (10 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2023, @05:39AM (9 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 16 2023, @06:01AM (8 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2023, @06:44AM (7 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 16 2023, @11:00AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2023, @06:59PM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 17 2023, @12:58AM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2023, @01:26AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 17 2023, @03:35AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2023, @03:53AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 18 2023, @01:38AM
The gold standard for support on SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2023, @03:21PM (4 children)
That's what you want to be true, but it's based on assertions that force you to use words like "seem" instead of "is".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 15 2023, @02:31AM (3 children)
You keep talking that up, buddy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2023, @03:05AM (2 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 15 2023, @03:32AM
You just did. Maybe we need a time out while you think about what you're writing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2023, @04:11AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by Reziac on Wednesday September 13 2023, @03:03AM (2 children)
(Score: -1, Insightful)
Congrats, I have never seen that before. That may even trump the coveted +5 Troll/Flamebait.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 13 2023, @01:50PM (1 child)
Shouldn't it be Inciteful ?
If a lazy person with no education can cross the border and take your job, we need to upgrade your job skills.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday September 13 2023, @02:05PM
Maybe we need more mod options!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.