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.

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.”

    The government breaks out absolute worst argument they could

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.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.

              • 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
                  11
                  ·
                  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.

              • 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?