5 ms·

>"That third part cant possibly be constitutional." The Californian legislative mindset appears to be based on passing bold and far reaching laws and then lett

>"That third part cant possibly be constitutional." The Californian legislative mindset appears to be based on passing bold and far reaching laws and then letting the courts determine constitutionality. They don't seem to have reservations about their own authority.

908B64B197 3y ago
Wait until some far-alt-right starts pushing some conspiracy theory or outright racist content. "This holocaust denial was brought to you by the California Legislature that prohibits social media platforms from deciding to ban this content".
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  "This section does not prohibit a covered platform from, and does not impose liability on a covered platform for, enforcing its terms of service against an eligible journalism provider."
  - nullc 3y ago
    "Our TOS prohibits charging for inbound links." Solved.
    - jasonlotito 3y ago
      How does that solve the comment I was replying to? The concern that content the provider wouldn't want on their site would have to display it? Your comment doesn't "solve" anything. Did you reply to the right comment?
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        They were saying that if TOS supercedes this law, then you could get around the de-linking retaliation by updating your TOS to forbid charging for link sharing. It was an extension of your statement applied back onto the law, not a rebuttle against your claim that content would no longer be moderated-able.
        nullc 3y ago
        Exactly. To the extent that the TOS carveout protects sites free speech it also moots the law's anti-"retaliation" provision. We need to fire state legislators that promote plainly unconstitutional laws, it's both professionally incompetent and a violation of their oath of office ( https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/fmc/pdf/std688.pdf https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/fmc/pdf/std688.pdf ). But hey, if they're going to advance unconstitutional laws it's at least polite that they're so incompetently drafted that they're self mooting.
prpl 3y ago
This is not limited to California, it happens in virtually every state with majority rule, left or right.
- tivert 3y ago
  > This is not limited to California, it happens in virtually every state with majority rule, left or right. Did you mean majority rule or did you actually mean one-party rule? Because California is a one-party rule state, and the mindset you're talking about seems to better fit for the situation where the politicians are unreasonably secure in their jobs/power.
  - asveikau 3y ago
    I feel like you guys must not follow politics. Bipartisanship is pretty much dead everywhere. Majority rule is one party rule, even for very slim majorities. Nobody crosses the aisle anymore. When we have a bicameral party split, or executive split with legislature, as we currently see federally on both counts, very little gets done.
  - prpl 3y ago
    Both probably. I’ve lived in Utah and California (among other states) and I would characterize both as having the majority of their politicians unreasonably secure in their jobs and power. In Utah, most of the politicians were more at risk of losing your seat due to a primary challenge from someone further right than you than general election. In California they have at least fixed that a bit with open primaries, so at least the moderate people can make it to the general election. In both states, at least, the governors tend to be slightly more moderate than the rest of the politicians. It is possibly true that the unreasonably secure don’t make up more than 50% of the votes, I’m not sure.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    LOL, the CA Democratic Party is by no means a monolith. There are leftist and centrists, and some good bills die because the centrists + GOP have enough votes to kill them.

908B64B197 3y ago

Wait until some far-alt-right starts pushing some conspiracy theory or outright racist content. "This holocaust denial was brought to you by the California Legislature that prohibits social media platforms from deciding to ban this content".

jasonlotito 3y ago
"This section does not prohibit a covered platform from, and does not impose liability on a covered platform for, enforcing its terms of service against an eligible journalism provider."
- nullc 3y ago
  "Our TOS prohibits charging for inbound links." Solved.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    How does that solve the comment I was replying to? The concern that content the provider wouldn't want on their site would have to display it? Your comment doesn't "solve" anything. Did you reply to the right comment?
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      They were saying that if TOS supercedes this law, then you could get around the de-linking retaliation by updating your TOS to forbid charging for link sharing. It was an extension of your statement applied back onto the law, not a rebuttle against your claim that content would no longer be moderated-able.
      - nullc 3y ago
        Exactly. To the extent that the TOS carveout protects sites free speech it also moots the law's anti-"retaliation" provision. We need to fire state legislators that promote plainly unconstitutional laws, it's both professionally incompetent and a violation of their oath of office ( https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/fmc/pdf/std688.pdf https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/fmc/pdf/std688.pdf ). But hey, if they're going to advance unconstitutional laws it's at least polite that they're so incompetently drafted that they're self mooting.

prpl 3y ago

This is not limited to California, it happens in virtually every state with majority rule, left or right.

tivert 3y ago
> This is not limited to California, it happens in virtually every state with majority rule, left or right. Did you mean majority rule or did you actually mean one-party rule? Because California is a one-party rule state, and the mindset you're talking about seems to better fit for the situation where the politicians are unreasonably secure in their jobs/power.
- asveikau 3y ago
  I feel like you guys must not follow politics. Bipartisanship is pretty much dead everywhere. Majority rule is one party rule, even for very slim majorities. Nobody crosses the aisle anymore. When we have a bicameral party split, or executive split with legislature, as we currently see federally on both counts, very little gets done.
- prpl 3y ago
  Both probably. I’ve lived in Utah and California (among other states) and I would characterize both as having the majority of their politicians unreasonably secure in their jobs and power. In Utah, most of the politicians were more at risk of losing your seat due to a primary challenge from someone further right than you than general election. In California they have at least fixed that a bit with open primaries, so at least the moderate people can make it to the general election. In both states, at least, the governors tend to be slightly more moderate than the rest of the politicians. It is possibly true that the unreasonably secure don’t make up more than 50% of the votes, I’m not sure.
- r00fus 3y ago
  LOL, the CA Democratic Party is by no means a monolith. There are leftist and centrists, and some good bills die because the centrists + GOP have enough votes to kill them.