4 ms·

From a quote in the article: > X Corp. is being forced to adopt the State’s politically-charged terms This is a universal problem around government reporting

From a quote in the article: > X Corp. is being forced to adopt the State’s politically-charged terms This is a universal problem around government reporting requirements. How many times have I been asked (indirectly by the government) to declare my "race" and not been presented with the obvious option of "human"? So, X seems to have identified a sliver of controversy in what I think is otherwise an appropriate topic of public concern. The reason I think it's an appropriate topic is because Section 230 immunizes the supposed expressive content of X's editorial policy so ... X shouldn't have as free rein to run that program in secret according to unknown whims.

perihelions 3y ago
- "Section 230 immunizes the supposed expressive content of X's editorial policy" The First Amendment protects the expressive content of X's editorial policy. - "X shouldn't have as free rein to run that program in secret according to unknown whims" The First Amendment protects secretive editorial policies run according to editors' whims.
- cherry_tree 3y ago
  The first amendment doesn’t define a corporation as a person endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Zigurd 3y ago
  In case you haven't noticed, saying in an ad "This pill will get you laid" is not in fact protected by the 1A. Commercial speech is regulated.
mpalmer 3y ago
> How many times have I been asked (indirectly by the government) to declare my "race" and not been presented with the obvious option of "human"? This particular statement by X doesn't get at the root of the legal matter at issue. Statistics about constitutionally protected behavior are not analogous to statistics dealing with demographic information. > The reason I think it's an appropriate topic is because Section 230 immunizes the supposed expressive content of X's editorial policy so ... X shouldn't have as free rein to run that program in secret according to unknown whims. They're immune from liability related to how they moderate content, therefore they have to disclose information to the government about how they moderate content? That sounds an awful lot like they're back to being liable.

perihelions 3y ago

- "Section 230 immunizes the supposed expressive content of X's editorial policy" The First Amendment protects the expressive content of X's editorial policy. - "X shouldn't have as free rein to run that program in secret according to unknown whims" The First Amendment protects secretive editorial policies run according to editors' whims.

cherry_tree 3y ago
The first amendment doesn’t define a corporation as a person endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Zigurd 3y ago
In case you haven't noticed, saying in an ad "This pill will get you laid" is not in fact protected by the 1A. Commercial speech is regulated.

mpalmer 3y ago

> How many times have I been asked (indirectly by the government) to declare my "race" and not been presented with the obvious option of "human"? This particular statement by X doesn't get at the root of the legal matter at issue. Statistics about constitutionally protected behavior are not analogous to statistics dealing with demographic information. > The reason I think it's an appropriate topic is because Section 230 immunizes the supposed expressive content of X's editorial policy so ... X shouldn't have as free rein to run that program in secret according to unknown whims. They're immune from liability related to how they moderate content, therefore they have to disclose information to the government about how they moderate content? That sounds an awful lot like they're back to being liable.