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.

  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    522·
    1 jaar geleden

    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
          2·
          1 jaar geleden

          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!

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
          101·
          1 jaar geleden

          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.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
              81·
              1 jaar geleden

              Yeah there is. It’s called public safety. The January 6th attempted coup was (poorly, but still) planned on Twitter, Facebook and Parler. If those three had been better moderated when it comes to hate speech and misinformation, the 9 people who died as a result of it would probably be alive today.

              • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                111·
                1 jaar geleden

                Lmao Jesus, if one pointless riot is your reasoning that everyone should be monitored and censored, you just simply don’t believe in basic rights. Also nice falsely inflated death count. 1=/=9

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  71·
                  1 jaar geleden

                  one pointless riot

                  First of all, there was very much an explicit point of that insurrection and it was far from an isolated event. Don’t play even more ignorant than you actually are.

                  is your reasoning

                  No, it’s called an example. Do you know what an example is or do I have to explain THAT incredibly obvious thing to you as well?

                  everyone should be monitored and censored

                  Holy strawman, Batman! Nobody said anything even remotely approaching that.

                  you just simply don’t believe in basic rights

                  Of course I do, you colossal idiot, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to provide a platform for use as a propaganda and recruitment tool of hate groups and grifters.

                  nice falsely inflated death count. 1=/=9

                  Pretending that Ashli Babbitt was the only one killed is so ridiculous as to be tantamount to pro-insurrection propaganda.

            • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.worldEnglish
              61·
              1 jaar geleden

              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
                110·
                1 jaar geleden

                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.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  41·
                  1 jaar geleden

                  It’s the job of the government to inspect and regulate businesses and this is a reasonable and frankly way overdue example of them doing exactly that. Nothing unreasonable about it and calling it unlimited intrusion or whatever makes you look like the dumbest of libertarians, which is REALLY saying something.

                  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                    19·
                    1 jaar geleden

                    No, it isn’t the purpose of government to just make demands of private businesses. It’s absolutely unreasonable for the government to do so with intent to censor

            • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
              51·
              1 jaar geleden

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