536
Let me summarize the core of the argument.
California: “You know what - we’re banning Nazis and Naziism.”
Elon: “This will lead to murdering kittens.”
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
536 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
59434 readers
3487 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not even that.
California: "Please tell us if you allow nazis or not. We just want you to be transparent."
Elon: "California is trying to pressure me into banning nazis! If I disclose I'm cool with nazis, people will be mad and they'll want me to stop. Also, a lot of hate watch groups say I'm letting nazis run free on X, and I'm suing them for defamation for saying that, but if I have to publicly disclose my pro-nazi content moderation policies I'm going to lose those lawsuits and likely have to pay attorneys fees! Not cool California, not cool at all."
I’m suing them for defamation for saying that
Not actually suing, that would require discovery which would lead to losing and more importantly forcing them to disclose their moderation policies. It's just an empty threat to sue so nazi sympathizers can point to it and "see they don't allow nazi's."
I kinda wish those groups would just pull an Uno Reverse and actually sue ElMu for defamation just to trigger the discovery process.
Though, I'm fairly certain it doesn't work that way. But given how pants on head the rest of the court system is, I also wouldn't be surprised if it did.
Wild that in 2023 we still have to discuss this nonsense. Nazis are always wrong. It's so easy not to be a Nazi. It's so much extra work to be a bigoted ignoramus than to just... not be that.
This who can do. Those who cannot teach. Those who cannot even become Nazis.
Elon isn't even a Proud Boy. He's an Ashamed Boy.
Dude you used all the wrong letters to spell “complete tool”.
I thought he was all about opening up the algorithm
When he realized it was just shitty code, he pulled back.
It’s the stack. The stack needs to be rewritten. The entire stack. It’s brittle, and the API makes 420 calls. He’s going to open source the blockchain AI for freedom but he’s being stopped by the Anti-Defamation League and trans people and Ukrainians.
You had me in the first half. But maybe safe to add that /s.
The full stack? Gosh, if only we could find a full stack developer.
Like he’d know, lol. He just lied. There was no change of mind. He just says what he thinks will work in the moment ans tries to make it sound plausible.
Ah yes, this must be the transparency Musk was talking about. Transparently bullshitting.
California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful."
Ah yes, demonetizing speech is also now an infringement on free speech. Or hindering it's priority (aka visibility on social media). Man first we have been coming for their guns for at least my whole adult life and now we are also going for their free speech! All these constitutional rights being taken away golly conservatives sure have it hard. :'(
I mean maybe we should start?
Edit: fuck sorry! forgot southern politicians have been doing that for years to keep their populace uneducated, re-educated, and on boarded to their show.
Do it. C'mon, Lonnie. Make life worse for yourself. I double dare ya.
Seriously, this passed in September and he bought Twitter in October. Sure, he'd been on the hook for months trying to get out of it, but he's had plenty of time to learn what would be required.
Even if other social media companies agree that this law goes too far, I can't imagine any of them hitching their wagon to his suit. Twitter is so full of nazi bullshit now that the optics would be terrible to do so.
ETA: We've crossed the fucking Rubicon! The only mention of Twitter was the author of the bill being quoted! Maybe we're finally done with the tedious "X, formerly Twitter," nonsense. Crack a beer and start the weekend right now!
Is this the process? You don’t like a law so you sue the state? Is this how laws get challenged and kicked upward for constitutionality review?
Yes: as with most laws, you fling a bunch of money at it until you get your way.
Ah yes. The true ’how a bill becomes a law’.
It’s been the process since the Corporatist push of the late 1970’s.
It's definitely part of a process. There's a reason all the scumbags in congress are lawyers.
It will always be Xitter to me, with the X pronounced like an "sh".
And tweets are now called xits
Haemorrhaging money quite quickly. No need to change tact, just keep going Elon. I'm watching with fingers crossed that your staff find work elsewhere, soon.
If this was a law asking about policies for protecting against piracy it wouldn't even be a headline. Protect money, fine. Protect humanity, fuck that.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
X Corp. said that if the court did not block the law, California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful."
"The State of California touts AB 587 as a mere 'transparency measure' under which certain social media companies must make their content moderation policies and statistics publicly available," X's complaint said.
X Corp. alleged that AB 587 violates other laws, including the Dormant Commerce Clause—"failing to restrict its extensive reporting requirements to information about Californians"—and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—which grants platforms immunity from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
The author of AB 587, California assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, released a statement saying that the law "is a pure transparency measure that simply requires companies to be upfront about if and how they are moderating content.
Adam Kovacevich, the CEO of the tech industry policy coalition Chamber of Progress, said that "requiring companies to give their content moderation playbook to scammers and conspiracists is a bad idea."
“Even if you don't like anything about Elon Musk’s leadership of X, it’s clear that requiring tech platforms to publish a detailed blueprint of how to work around content moderators will have negative consequences for users online," Kovacevich said.
The original article contains 774 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Only 293,333 days until the remaining 10% of Twitter's value is spent on fines. Or, 1 year if they have 804 violations at once. We can do this! We can end the nightmare.
“up to $15,000 per violation per day.” This is going to get expensive. He might as well move the company out if california.
X Corp. said that if the court did not block the law, California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful."
Thats exactly the argument Id make. Hate speech is just speech the state doesn't like. And since when has the state not abused its powers?
Oh yes because racism, sexism, and nazism should be allowed to be promoted because free speech. So what minorities will be lynched, women will be raped, and our country will slip into authoritarianism because that is freedom...
Listen up, propaganda works. That is why it is being used to disrupt our society. It is time to pick a side. Are you with the haters calling for the end of people's freedom in the name of the false premise of freedom of speech so they can reshape society to benefit the minority? Because that is what we're are really talking about.
You do realize thats not what I mean by hate speech, right? Hate speech here means "speech the government doesn't like"