> the state has no business whatsoever dictating how speech is moderated.
Red herring. It does not dictate anything, just requires companies to report what they’re doing.
Red herring. It does not dictate anything, just requires companies to report what they’re doing.
And what possible interest does the State of California have in gathering this information? It's close enough to have a chilling effect, and thus the state should have to provide a justification.
This law is illegal and it will be wiped away.
It is expected of a government to resist against any tendencies to abolish democratic rule and peaceful transition of power. That is the single most important task given to a government by us. And soley for that purpose we often allow them to wear a big stick — why? Because outside of democratic rule the law is a arbitrary set of words that can be interpreted by the ruling class in any way they please and that isn't good for the individual, unless you are foolish enough to believe you'd end up in that ruling class (that is 50% of the appeal of fascism).
Now as a government would have any right to forcefully resist coup attempts and such, it can (and does) also restrict certain social movements that aim for its abolishment. Usually this happens more on the left than on the right tho, remember the whole communism craze in the US?
Transparency about business operations is a good thing for consumers. We force it in the case of a "public" company in the interest of allowing people to make good investment decisions, why don't we allow such reports to benefit the non-investing public as well?
In the end the only true defence are people that want to uphold democracy. If you have them, laws can be phrased as badly as you like, if you don't, then they can be phrased as well as you like, they will "only" buy you time.
If your gov. makes bad laws, don't elect them next time. And if your only defence of the freedom of the press is to make coroporations people (but only if it benefits them), those are bad laws.
It won't be long before laws say things like "99% of takedowns must occur within 1 hour of a report being made" or "No more than 1% of users may see content which is later taken down on any given day, otherwise we will fine you for insufficient moderation"
That, combined with a court making a few decisions on moderation (months after the fact), means that the only way way for a platform to make sure that < 1% of users see content taken down by a court later is to remove all except the safest content right away before anyone sees it. End result: Self policing to only uncontroversial boring stuff.
1. Corporations having "free speech" is a fucking perversion of the original purpose of that law. Corporations are not people. Governments protecting corporate rights more than individual rights is the root of a good chunk of all problems the US is having right now.
2. I expect my government to scrutinize the hell out of corporations and protect the rights of individuals. Article 1 of the European Charter of Human Rights states: the dignity of man is inviolable. People having to be at the receiving end of discrimination, racism, sexism etc. is a violation of their dignity — their rights. Rights I expect them to protect.
Now I always thought of people in the US to be adamant about individual freedoms, but maybe I have been wrong and it is more about shilling for corporations and letting them divide you into small, easy to manage camps with the help of corporate media and lobbied politicians that get surprisingly rich when they are in office.
Government + Corporations = Fascism
And there is 99% chance you won't profit from it
The progressive narrative is that this type of discrimination doesn't count because these people are magically privileged and powerful. Letting this go completely unchecked is what is fueling a new rise in "traditional" types of discrimination. It's hate fueling more hate.
If you believe in the rights of individuals, it should be based on first principles. All individuals, not just the ones you happen to like.
You seem to be implying a lot about my political views here. That implication says more about you than it says about me. Growing up in a (bi-)polarized culture must be a pain.
I don't think men should be discriminated against just because they are men (and I am biased, I am a man).
So if I get catcalled as a guy once in 3 years it has a different impact than a girl getting catcalled twice a day.
If someone discriminates me for my white skin once or twice, while I have profited from it my whole life, this is od course wrong, but it won't hurt my prospect in life. If I had a dark skin the racism would be a daily occurance and something that seriously impacts my prospect in life.
So if the actual impact in reality differs, we can also treat those things differently in policy, don't you think?
A "company" is explicitly an organization that we throw a handful of benefits and handouts to as a society, like limited liability and apparently the unwillingness to punish you for crimes. Surely it's justified that this legal fiction should be held to some standards that you couldn't necessarily hold a person to.
Hell, if you believe "Free speech" should apply to businesses, then "False marketing" laws should be unconstitutional! That's insane.
No one has a right to not be offended. Race, sex, etc are arbitrary things. Why not add weight, hair color, accent, etc to the list?
No - what it means is government will respect those aspects of people and treat all with dignity. But private citizens and the organizations they build are not compelled to that standard.
What you describe is totalitarian, authoritarian government that exists to oppress freedom and liberty.
No danke.
You can try to equate the two, but that says more about you than about the topic at hand.
The real question is: What is the justification to mandate a collection of this data?
It's facially clear that Musk's issue is that he doesn't want it to be revealed that he hasn't been fair, has been arbitrary, and has been boosting the groups he's been alleged to have been boosting, because this will all be inherently reflected in the report. Also likely to be reflected in the report is information that can lead people to the conclusion that Twitter use is down, which he doesn't want to reveal because it will make his decisions look stupid.
You can't just saw "slippery slope", you have to provide evidence that there's strong public (in a democracy) and political will to continue down that slope.
Even if you believe abusing Twitter is popular and wanted from democrats (it isn't), it sure as hell isn't popular for the entire nation.
Step 2-N: Things I made up, but I put them in quotes so they seem more impressive
Step N+1: Bad thing, literally 1984 thought police