6 ms·

X challenges California’s new transparency law as unconstitutional

55 points by donpott 3y ago

cloudcloud3243 3y ago
law and order
jiofj 3y ago
>How closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms is certainly a matter of some dispute and delicacy. Too far in one direction results in censorship like China’s, while a totally hands-off approach results in rampant abuse, as we’ve seen in the past. Citation needed, I guess?
- keiferski 3y ago
  This belief, which is omnipresent at media orgs like TechCrunch, isn’t one that comes from scientific studies or careful reasoning, so I don’t think citations will do much. It’s more of a tribalistic social belief; the other team thinks X so I have to think not X.
- midasuni 3y ago
  Usenet for example, completely unusable as we ended the 90s as the noise:signal ratio collapsed.
  - jiofj 3y ago
    The text I quoted does not say that social networks need moderation, it says that social networks need state-mandated moderation.
    - Pyramus 3y ago
      So you agree that social networks need moderation, but you disagree that there should be a law that says social networks need moderation?
      - keiferski 3y ago
        Not the person you’re replying to, but: Is this supposed to be some kind of contradiction? There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.
        Pyramus 3y ago
        No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is? > There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact. Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume. So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable. It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.
        jiofj 3y ago
        Read the original quote from the article. It does not say that the state should say that there should be some moderation, it says that the state should say how platforms are moderated. "how closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms" Also, again and again: the fact that all platforms you know are moderated does not mean that this should happen by law.
        keiferski 3y ago
        I don’t understand what is so complicated about this. The legal system is not the solution to every problem. Moderation is not the same as passing laws.
        jdenning 3y ago
        When a site sets their own standards of moderation, users have a choice to use or not use the site based on those standards. When the state sets the standard, then users are not able to choose the site that has the appropriate amount/type of moderation. Clearly, there are people who want to use sites with minimal moderation, eg 4chan. I don’t want to use 4chan myself, because of its lack of moderation, but why should I care if others do want to use 4chan? I think OP’s point is pretty clear - just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
    - PicassoCTs 3y ago
      Well, the state is just the moderation-team the people voted for in a democracy?
      - twoodfin 3y ago
        Not when it comes to speech in the United States, thank goodness.
        midasuni 3y ago
        Tried threatening the President recently? Or making art of counterfeit currency? Or encouraging someone to commit suicide? Or print some child pornographers? Or put up some normal pornography on your property? The US is full of restrictions on speech and has been for its entire existence.
        twoodfin 3y ago
        Of course: The limits of those restrictions aren’t set by a democratic process, either.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    4Chan as well. Or, as Musk shows everyday, Twitter.
- pjc50 3y ago
  I think, ironically, the best example might be matters around election fraud and Jan 6, where people somehow talked themselves into conspiracy to commit Federal crimes; Trump was eventually moderated off Twitter but not by the state, and indeed a lot of people got upset that the head of state was being (correctly) moderated by a private platform and not the other way round.
therouwboat 3y ago
I seem to remember that musk promised to make moderation decisions more transparent and even open source the algoritm, I wonder why they are against this.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  The enduring trait of narcissism that I have encountered is their hatred and refusal to abide by contracts or to have their behavior constrained in any way that has teeth. They would never allow you to receive any resource or benefit unmitigated by constant threats or innuendo as to how long it might persist for you before its tragically "taken away" [by them, lawfully or otherwise] They're basically little mob bosses. Its a completely unsustainable relationship wherever it exists.
  - deepfriedchokes 3y ago
    “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Its honestly like watching an episode of AnimalPlanet when you can get the force of law applied against them compelling them to do whatever required to comply with judgements or their obligations. Its an alien experience for them
- misnome 3y ago
  Easy: He lied
- rmbyrro 3y ago
  They're not necessarily against the premise of transparency in moderation. They're against the government mandating it, which they argue is unconstitutional. Personally, I agree. This is the first step towards totalitarian governments. Probably anyone who understood a bit of human history would be terrified about this Californian initiative.
- 3y ago
zenapollo 3y ago
If, and it’s a big if, the law is really about transparency i would generally support it. There is a lot that big tech is doing behind the scenes that shape our culture, but the biases and incentives are shadowy. Without having to fix biases, having knowledge of them is so much better than not. I would like to see X’s argument about why their against the law, though i speculate there is a lot more than simple transparency.
perihelions 3y ago
Even I can see the obvious overreach—notwithstanding that I'm on the side maximally distant from X's politics. It doesn't matter if it's falsehoods, racism, or advocacy of violence: California has no legitimate interest in regulating online speech. That's expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. It has no legitimate interest in mandating statistical data-collection about online speech, either: because there's no legitimate government function that data serves and informs. (You have no legitimate business casing the bank's vaults because there's no plausible lawful action you can do with the information you're gathering. That pile of money doesn't belong to you). If you're having trouble sympathizing with the civics because the litigant, X, is horrible, and X users are horrible—just flip to a hypothetical where it's the government position that's horrible. Like so: "the DeSantis government of Florida has mandated social media platforms disclose statistics about LGBT content on their platforms". Does this make it easier to see how (0) indirect laws about speech (i.e. mandatory statistics) have direct chilling effects on that speech, and (1) "mere data-collection" about speech doesn't apparently serve any legitimate government function? (Political signalling isn't a legitimate government function). And: suppose the mandatory forms you have to fill out for DeSantis Transparency describe the LGBT content field in offensive, homophobic language. Could you then consider the X attorneys' argument that filling out forms can be an unconstitutional form of compelled speech?
- heinrich5991 3y ago
  > "the DeSantis government of Florida has mandated social media platforms disclose statistics about LGBT content on their platforms" > content moderation policies and statistics Can you explain how the law would require them to provide statistics on LGBT content? From the article, it seems like they'd only need to provide statistics on moderating LGBT content, which seems… OK? Also they'd need to publish their stance on LGBT content, which would be "we don't police it".
  - mpalmer 3y ago
    Moderation of online speech is speech; they're still casing the bank vault.
ralferoo 3y ago
From FTA: "The law requires social media companies to publicly detail moderation practices around hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. How these concepts are defined, how rules around them are enforced and what users can do to better understand (and if necessary, challenge) the pertinent processes must be submitted twice a year starting in 2024." I fail to see how this can be seen as a free-speech issue - it's not restricting speech nor, as per their other argument, is it "a form of compelled speech". Instead, it's simply making their policies, whatever they are, public. If Xitter wants to promote free speech and not moderate anything, it can, it just needs to say that's what it's doing. If Xitter wants to have free speech, but follow the law and remove anything illegal, it can, it just needs to document that. If Xitter wants to moderate stuff, it totally can, it just needs to say what it's moderating, and how. The reason they're objecting to this, almost certainly isn't to do with free speech, rather the opposite - they will want to retain the ability to moderate things they don't like out of existence whilst pretending that they absolutely don't moderate anything because then they can claim the exemptions that allow them not to be responsible for their moderation.
- hef19898 3y ago
  That sounds about right.
spacecadet 3y ago
I saw we torch the constitution and start over. I also find a technology company clutching this particular dead tree document to be hypocrisy to the max. But then again half these fools want to run for president now... I don't think this is about tech, its clearly about white power.
- jdenning 3y ago
  What would a new and improved constitution look like? Basically the same but with more restricted speech? I’m genuinely curious - I hear people talk about rebooting the constitution frequently, but no one ever follows up with what specifically they would change.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - spacecadet 3y ago
    Culture changes too quickly for something so static.
demondemidi 3y ago
All this legal maneouvering just so nazis can nazi without fear of consequences. Sad.

55 points by donpott 3y ago

law and order

>How closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms is certainly a matter of some dispute and delicacy. Too far in one direction results in censorship like China’s, while a totally hands-off approach results in rampant abuse, as we’ve seen in the past. Citation needed, I guess?

keiferski 3y ago
This belief, which is omnipresent at media orgs like TechCrunch, isn’t one that comes from scientific studies or careful reasoning, so I don’t think citations will do much. It’s more of a tribalistic social belief; the other team thinks X so I have to think not X.
midasuni 3y ago
Usenet for example, completely unusable as we ended the 90s as the noise:signal ratio collapsed.
- jiofj 3y ago
  The text I quoted does not say that social networks need moderation, it says that social networks need state-mandated moderation.
  - Pyramus 3y ago
    So you agree that social networks need moderation, but you disagree that there should be a law that says social networks need moderation?
    - keiferski 3y ago
      Not the person you’re replying to, but: Is this supposed to be some kind of contradiction? There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.
      - Pyramus 3y ago
        No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is? > There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact. Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume. So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable. It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.
        jiofj 3y ago
        Read the original quote from the article. It does not say that the state should say that there should be some moderation, it says that the state should say how platforms are moderated. "how closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms" Also, again and again: the fact that all platforms you know are moderated does not mean that this should happen by law.
        keiferski 3y ago
        I don’t understand what is so complicated about this. The legal system is not the solution to every problem. Moderation is not the same as passing laws.
        jdenning 3y ago
        When a site sets their own standards of moderation, users have a choice to use or not use the site based on those standards. When the state sets the standard, then users are not able to choose the site that has the appropriate amount/type of moderation. Clearly, there are people who want to use sites with minimal moderation, eg 4chan. I don’t want to use 4chan myself, because of its lack of moderation, but why should I care if others do want to use 4chan? I think OP’s point is pretty clear - just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
  - PicassoCTs 3y ago
    Well, the state is just the moderation-team the people voted for in a democracy?
    - twoodfin 3y ago
      Not when it comes to speech in the United States, thank goodness.
      - midasuni 3y ago
        Tried threatening the President recently? Or making art of counterfeit currency? Or encouraging someone to commit suicide? Or print some child pornographers? Or put up some normal pornography on your property? The US is full of restrictions on speech and has been for its entire existence.
        twoodfin 3y ago
        Of course: The limits of those restrictions aren’t set by a democratic process, either.
- hef19898 3y ago
  4Chan as well. Or, as Musk shows everyday, Twitter.
pjc50 3y ago
I think, ironically, the best example might be matters around election fraud and Jan 6, where people somehow talked themselves into conspiracy to commit Federal crimes; Trump was eventually moderated off Twitter but not by the state, and indeed a lot of people got upset that the head of state was being (correctly) moderated by a private platform and not the other way round.

therouwboat 3y ago

I seem to remember that musk promised to make moderation decisions more transparent and even open source the algoritm, I wonder why they are against this.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
The enduring trait of narcissism that I have encountered is their hatred and refusal to abide by contracts or to have their behavior constrained in any way that has teeth. They would never allow you to receive any resource or benefit unmitigated by constant threats or innuendo as to how long it might persist for you before its tragically "taken away" [by them, lawfully or otherwise] They're basically little mob bosses. Its a completely unsustainable relationship wherever it exists.
- deepfriedchokes 3y ago
  “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Its honestly like watching an episode of AnimalPlanet when you can get the force of law applied against them compelling them to do whatever required to comply with judgements or their obligations. Its an alien experience for them
misnome 3y ago
Easy: He lied
rmbyrro 3y ago
They're not necessarily against the premise of transparency in moderation. They're against the government mandating it, which they argue is unconstitutional. Personally, I agree. This is the first step towards totalitarian governments. Probably anyone who understood a bit of human history would be terrified about this Californian initiative.
3y ago

zenapollo 3y ago

If, and it’s a big if, the law is really about transparency i would generally support it. There is a lot that big tech is doing behind the scenes that shape our culture, but the biases and incentives are shadowy. Without having to fix biases, having knowledge of them is so much better than not. I would like to see X’s argument about why their against the law, though i speculate there is a lot more than simple transparency.

perihelions 3y ago

Even I can see the obvious overreach—notwithstanding that I'm on the side maximally distant from X's politics. It doesn't matter if it's falsehoods, racism, or advocacy of violence: California has no legitimate interest in regulating online speech. That's expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. It has no legitimate interest in mandating statistical data-collection about online speech, either: because there's no legitimate government function that data serves and informs. (You have no legitimate business casing the bank's vaults because there's no plausible lawful action you can do with the information you're gathering. That pile of money doesn't belong to you). If you're having trouble sympathizing with the civics because the litigant, X, is horrible, and X users are horrible—just flip to a hypothetical where it's the government position that's horrible. Like so: "the DeSantis government of Florida has mandated social media platforms disclose statistics about LGBT content on their platforms". Does this make it easier to see how (0) indirect laws about speech (i.e. mandatory statistics) have direct chilling effects on that speech, and (1) "mere data-collection" about speech doesn't apparently serve any legitimate government function? (Political signalling isn't a legitimate government function). And: suppose the mandatory forms you have to fill out for DeSantis Transparency describe the LGBT content field in offensive, homophobic language. Could you then consider the X attorneys' argument that filling out forms can be an unconstitutional form of compelled speech?

heinrich5991 3y ago
> "the DeSantis government of Florida has mandated social media platforms disclose statistics about LGBT content on their platforms" > content moderation policies and statistics Can you explain how the law would require them to provide statistics on LGBT content? From the article, it seems like they'd only need to provide statistics on moderating LGBT content, which seems… OK? Also they'd need to publish their stance on LGBT content, which would be "we don't police it".
- mpalmer 3y ago
  Moderation of online speech is speech; they're still casing the bank vault.

ralferoo 3y ago

From FTA: "The law requires social media companies to publicly detail moderation practices around hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. How these concepts are defined, how rules around them are enforced and what users can do to better understand (and if necessary, challenge) the pertinent processes must be submitted twice a year starting in 2024." I fail to see how this can be seen as a free-speech issue - it's not restricting speech nor, as per their other argument, is it "a form of compelled speech". Instead, it's simply making their policies, whatever they are, public. If Xitter wants to promote free speech and not moderate anything, it can, it just needs to say that's what it's doing. If Xitter wants to have free speech, but follow the law and remove anything illegal, it can, it just needs to document that. If Xitter wants to moderate stuff, it totally can, it just needs to say what it's moderating, and how. The reason they're objecting to this, almost certainly isn't to do with free speech, rather the opposite - they will want to retain the ability to moderate things they don't like out of existence whilst pretending that they absolutely don't moderate anything because then they can claim the exemptions that allow them not to be responsible for their moderation.

hef19898 3y ago
That sounds about right.

spacecadet 3y ago

I saw we torch the constitution and start over. I also find a technology company clutching this particular dead tree document to be hypocrisy to the max. But then again half these fools want to run for president now... I don't think this is about tech, its clearly about white power.

jdenning 3y ago
What would a new and improved constitution look like? Basically the same but with more restricted speech? I’m genuinely curious - I hear people talk about rebooting the constitution frequently, but no one ever follows up with what specifically they would change.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- spacecadet 3y ago
  Culture changes too quickly for something so static.

demondemidi 3y ago

All this legal maneouvering just so nazis can nazi without fear of consequences. Sad.