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.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  None of that is true. Go away if you the only thing you have to contribute is libertarian lies about basic accountability being tyranny.

                  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Lmao why should I go away just because you have nothing except outright lies to defend your demands to terminate basic rights.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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