9 ms·

X should lose here. Governments have a long-standing right to force companies to disclose information that is important to consumers.

Bjartr 3y ago
I agree, this seems fairly cut and dry. People are jumping past the law as written to downstream actions that become feasible for the state if the law exists. This required reporting isn't the problem to attack though, it's those downstream actions. Now perhaps (probably) there should be a mechanism in place to stop the gov't from even getting this far, but, AFAIK, such a mechanism does not yet exist and it's certainly not the first amendment.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Is there precedent for the government requiring traditional newspapers to submit reports like this explaining their editorial processes and priorities?
- EdSchouten 3y ago
  Regardless of what the answer to your question is, X is not a newspaper.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. Unless a double standard is being applied "because computers", which is what I am teasing out. The courts are better about upholding the First Amendment when there is ink being put on paper, because that's something which is well established and understood. As soon as computers get involved, people get this idea that old rules no longer apply "because computers". This is why the book PGP Source Code and Internals was published; because ink on paper makes the matter clear cut.
    - rewmie 3y ago
      > In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. This sort of pointless truism means nothing at all. The crux of the matter boils down to the common carrier status, and whether companies can be held liable for the content being handled through their service. If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that.
      - function_seven 3y ago
        > If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that. My apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement here, but this feels like a misunderstanding of section 230. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
    - Volundr 3y ago
      The difference isn't "because computers", the difference is that Twitter claims it has no editorial control over the content published on its platform while a newspaper claims complete editorial control. That's a huge functional difference.
    - wgjordan 3y ago
      The so-called 'double standard' in AB-587 (defining 'social media platform') is entirely consistent with the existing federal 'double standard' set up a quarter-century ago by Section 230, which makes providers of 'interactive computer services' immunity from liability for content moderation decisions. This bill can be seen as oversight layered on top of those existing content-moderation liability protections. If you want to tilt at 'because computers' windmills, Section 230 is the real target.
- the_optimist 3y ago
  OP analysis is specious at best. This is why you shouldn’t ask non-lawyers for legal opinions. Lol at the aggressive partisan downvoting. Sorry you feel compelled to such anti-Musk right-think, either sock accounts or a display of hackery. Either way, very stoopid.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    I was going to write that I hope Musk does not get any advice from HN. But then he gets it from Twitter so who knows…
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  Do traditional newspapers claim to be legally exempt from liability for the content they publish/don't publish?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Does that mean no?
    - maxwell 3y ago
      Are you asserting the network formerly known as Twitter is a publisher (in the legal/technical sense)?
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. If a newspaper decided they want to publish a bunch of letters sent to them by the public (as they do), is there precedent for the government compelling the newspaper to explain the basis by which they choose which letters to publish or forbid? I think this is a case of "it's different because computers", and this wouldn't fly if it were a traditional publisher putting ink on paper.
        rewmie 3y ago
        > I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. Either you're failing to understand the question, or you're trying to be disingenuous about it. Newspapers editorialize their content. Elon Musk's Twitter is not, and is claiming to have no control over what content third parties publish throught their service. However, Elon Musk's Twitter is also manipulating the contents that third parties publish through their service by means of moderation/censorship and boosting. Given they claim they hold no editorial control over what goes through their pipes but still manipulate the content, they have a responsibility to demonstrate that they are not liable for that content by specifying exactly which rules they enforce and how they enforce them. Do you understand the difference between assuming responsibility over the content, and claiming that they are not liable for the content they distribute because they don't pick and choose what goes through their pipes?
- freejazz 3y ago
  There's precedent for the government to force various different types of organizations to disclose information in the public interest. Newspapers don't partake in any of the activities that this disclosure rule addresses, so I don't think a court will find it to be a relevant comparison, because it has nothing to do with the kinds of activities the government is trying to regulate.
  - whartung 3y ago
    I don't know about that. Newspapers enforce editorial policy over their opinion columns and things like which letters to publish. This law sounds like, if it actually applied to them, which is doesn't, they would need to submit a report about why they didn't allow "Letter from Aunt Ethel" to be published. What criteria did they use in not allowing it to be published, etc. Why did they publish "Letter from Uncle Frank" instead. Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. And I can see it argued that editorial policies are political speech. We all know magazines or publications and websites that represent a political philosophy, what articles they publish, how the articles are worded, etc. That's everywhere. "Why didn't you allow XXX to be published? Because we don't like the point of view of XXX!" And part of having a political philosophy and the speech rights around it is that you should be allowed, should be "free" that is, to not say anything at all! When you start getting "have you stopped beating your wife" questions, you should be allowed to say "no comment". Compelled speech is not freedom of speech. Publishing in detail your moderation policies and activities is arguably compelled release of a political philosophy. Now, does a Corporation have such a right? Today, it's hard to say. If a Corporation apparently has the right to impact elections (economically) that implies it has a political position and perhaps that the detailing of that position (or not) should be a protected. IANAL. The big problem here is this shouldn't be an issue. How many websites have a privacy policy of "We're going to gather everything we can from you, and sell it to the highest bidder. If we could get your DNA, we'd sell that too." That should be a perfectly viable "privacy policy". If X has to publish "yes, the exact details" of how they moderate extreme speech, maybe they'll just publish "we don't" and leave it at that. Which, of course, brings even more, indirect, scrutiny. In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer".
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  Sure, let's treat Twitter like a traditional newspaper, which would mean they'd be legally liable for all the content they "publish". I think given that they're monetizing extremist content, that'd be a really smart legal play for them.
LanceH 3y ago
How quickly the sides have flopped on this one.
- HelloMcFly 3y ago
  The US political Left has wanted visibility into content moderation since at least the 2010s, so the idea that somehow this is "flip-flop" is disingenuous. The US political Right has wanted this information too, at least until they felt they had one of their own pulling the levers. Keep in mind that nothing about this policy mandates any content be posted or removed, nor does it impact X's ability to ban or not ban anyone they want for content they post (laws from Florida and Texas cannot claim the same).
solardev 3y ago
I think there is a pretty good case to be made here that AB 587 is unconstitutional and violates the 1A. Other states have made similar laws and those are being challenged up to the Supreme Court. I bet this one will too unless California overturns it. https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/news/california-social-media-transparency-law/ https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/news/california-social... Not a Twitter user or a Musk fan, so not defending them. But it's hard for me to see how this law wouldn't chill speech...
- moralestapia 3y ago
  >Even if you don't like anything about Elon Musk’s leadership of X, From TFA. >Not a Twitter user or a Musk fan, From your comment. It sucks that the level of debate all over the place, including this forum full of people who are more educated than average, has fallen so low that the (extremely simple to grasp) concept of ad hominem is out of place and one has to write such disclaimers frequently in order to bring an argument into a discussion.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I think it's only human, no? That we even have a fancy Latin phrase for it suggests it's a phenomenon that's been with us for a while, and that the ancients and the greats and the geniuses alike have had to work to keep in check. I know I certainly had to hold that impulse in check, myself. At first I was like "Oh god, what shenanigans is that guy up to now." And then I read the article and realized wait, this guy I dislike might actually have a point this time. I say that not to be protective, really, but to point out that I think they may have a case here even though I find their entire operation suspect.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    One of of the two “disclaimers” you cite is an common attempt to reinforce one’s own an argument by painting it as a statement against bias, which is a subtle form (positive) ad hominem, not an attempt to avoid ad hominem and focus on pure rational argumentation.
sneak 3y ago
I disagree. This seems like a blatant 1A violation by the state: > AB 587 passed in September 2022, requiring social media platforms to submit a "terms of service report" semi-annually to California's attorney general, providing "a detailed description of content moderation practices used" and "information about whether, and if so how, the social media company defines and moderates" hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. Under the law, social media platforms must also provide information and statistics on any content moderation actions taken in those categories. All of the things listed, with the exception of foreign political interference, are protected expression. This is the government trying to outsource censorship.
- growse 3y ago
  How is this different to any other sort of regulation?
- rangerelf 3y ago
  I disagree. "X" does those things as part of a profit generating enterprise; if those things affect the greater population then they absolutely should be disclosed. And before someone says "What about Meta? What about Google? What about Youtube?" Yep, them too. They should all disclose the basis of their moderation decisions. Because they're used to steer public opinion. Because it's been demonstrated that they have been used to manipulate public perception to the detriment of groups of people. Because people have died from misinformation.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    I find it's important to avoid "is/ought" fallacies. I'm not sure my warning actually applies here -- this seems like a properly complicated legal topic and especially whenever something has a lot of contemporary relevance, there's a lot of unexpected flexibility in which precedents are considered vs. ignored. But it's a good rule of thumb to follow nonetheless.
- Guvante 3y ago
  That isn't Twitter/X's argument though. Their argument is producing the document is forced speech. That argument is not aligned with any precedent. The government absolutely has the right to compel you to talk about your internal actions. Your argument is effectively slippery slope falacy given the government is tracking not enforcing action here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Bjartr 3y ago

I agree, this seems fairly cut and dry. People are jumping past the law as written to downstream actions that become feasible for the state if the law exists. This required reporting isn't the problem to attack though, it's those downstream actions. Now perhaps (probably) there should be a mechanism in place to stop the gov't from even getting this far, but, AFAIK, such a mechanism does not yet exist and it's certainly not the first amendment.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Is there precedent for the government requiring traditional newspapers to submit reports like this explaining their editorial processes and priorities?

EdSchouten 3y ago
Regardless of what the answer to your question is, X is not a newspaper.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. Unless a double standard is being applied "because computers", which is what I am teasing out. The courts are better about upholding the First Amendment when there is ink being put on paper, because that's something which is well established and understood. As soon as computers get involved, people get this idea that old rules no longer apply "because computers". This is why the book PGP Source Code and Internals was published; because ink on paper makes the matter clear cut.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. This sort of pointless truism means nothing at all. The crux of the matter boils down to the common carrier status, and whether companies can be held liable for the content being handled through their service. If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that.
    - function_seven 3y ago
      > If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that. My apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement here, but this feels like a misunderstanding of section 230. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
  - Volundr 3y ago
    The difference isn't "because computers", the difference is that Twitter claims it has no editorial control over the content published on its platform while a newspaper claims complete editorial control. That's a huge functional difference.
  - wgjordan 3y ago
    The so-called 'double standard' in AB-587 (defining 'social media platform') is entirely consistent with the existing federal 'double standard' set up a quarter-century ago by Section 230, which makes providers of 'interactive computer services' immunity from liability for content moderation decisions. This bill can be seen as oversight layered on top of those existing content-moderation liability protections. If you want to tilt at 'because computers' windmills, Section 230 is the real target.
the_optimist 3y ago
OP analysis is specious at best. This is why you shouldn’t ask non-lawyers for legal opinions. Lol at the aggressive partisan downvoting. Sorry you feel compelled to such anti-Musk right-think, either sock accounts or a display of hackery. Either way, very stoopid.
- kergonath 3y ago
  I was going to write that I hope Musk does not get any advice from HN. But then he gets it from Twitter so who knows…
InitialLastName 3y ago
Do traditional newspapers claim to be legally exempt from liability for the content they publish/don't publish?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Does that mean no?
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Are you asserting the network formerly known as Twitter is a publisher (in the legal/technical sense)?
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. If a newspaper decided they want to publish a bunch of letters sent to them by the public (as they do), is there precedent for the government compelling the newspaper to explain the basis by which they choose which letters to publish or forbid? I think this is a case of "it's different because computers", and this wouldn't fly if it were a traditional publisher putting ink on paper.
      - rewmie 3y ago
        > I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. Either you're failing to understand the question, or you're trying to be disingenuous about it. Newspapers editorialize their content. Elon Musk's Twitter is not, and is claiming to have no control over what content third parties publish throught their service. However, Elon Musk's Twitter is also manipulating the contents that third parties publish through their service by means of moderation/censorship and boosting. Given they claim they hold no editorial control over what goes through their pipes but still manipulate the content, they have a responsibility to demonstrate that they are not liable for that content by specifying exactly which rules they enforce and how they enforce them. Do you understand the difference between assuming responsibility over the content, and claiming that they are not liable for the content they distribute because they don't pick and choose what goes through their pipes?
freejazz 3y ago
There's precedent for the government to force various different types of organizations to disclose information in the public interest. Newspapers don't partake in any of the activities that this disclosure rule addresses, so I don't think a court will find it to be a relevant comparison, because it has nothing to do with the kinds of activities the government is trying to regulate.
- whartung 3y ago
  I don't know about that. Newspapers enforce editorial policy over their opinion columns and things like which letters to publish. This law sounds like, if it actually applied to them, which is doesn't, they would need to submit a report about why they didn't allow "Letter from Aunt Ethel" to be published. What criteria did they use in not allowing it to be published, etc. Why did they publish "Letter from Uncle Frank" instead. Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. And I can see it argued that editorial policies are political speech. We all know magazines or publications and websites that represent a political philosophy, what articles they publish, how the articles are worded, etc. That's everywhere. "Why didn't you allow XXX to be published? Because we don't like the point of view of XXX!" And part of having a political philosophy and the speech rights around it is that you should be allowed, should be "free" that is, to not say anything at all! When you start getting "have you stopped beating your wife" questions, you should be allowed to say "no comment". Compelled speech is not freedom of speech. Publishing in detail your moderation policies and activities is arguably compelled release of a political philosophy. Now, does a Corporation have such a right? Today, it's hard to say. If a Corporation apparently has the right to impact elections (economically) that implies it has a political position and perhaps that the detailing of that position (or not) should be a protected. IANAL. The big problem here is this shouldn't be an issue. How many websites have a privacy policy of "We're going to gather everything we can from you, and sell it to the highest bidder. If we could get your DNA, we'd sell that too." That should be a perfectly viable "privacy policy". If X has to publish "yes, the exact details" of how they moderate extreme speech, maybe they'll just publish "we don't" and leave it at that. Which, of course, brings even more, indirect, scrutiny. In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer".
empath-nirvana 3y ago
Sure, let's treat Twitter like a traditional newspaper, which would mean they'd be legally liable for all the content they "publish". I think given that they're monetizing extremist content, that'd be a really smart legal play for them.

LanceH 3y ago

How quickly the sides have flopped on this one.

HelloMcFly 3y ago
The US political Left has wanted visibility into content moderation since at least the 2010s, so the idea that somehow this is "flip-flop" is disingenuous. The US political Right has wanted this information too, at least until they felt they had one of their own pulling the levers. Keep in mind that nothing about this policy mandates any content be posted or removed, nor does it impact X's ability to ban or not ban anyone they want for content they post (laws from Florida and Texas cannot claim the same).

solardev 3y ago

I think there is a pretty good case to be made here that AB 587 is unconstitutional and violates the 1A. Other states have made similar laws and those are being challenged up to the Supreme Court. I bet this one will too unless California overturns it. https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/news/california-social-media-transparency-law/ https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/news/california-social... Not a Twitter user or a Musk fan, so not defending them. But it's hard for me to see how this law wouldn't chill speech...

moralestapia 3y ago
>Even if you don't like anything about Elon Musk’s leadership of X, From TFA. >Not a Twitter user or a Musk fan, From your comment. It sucks that the level of debate all over the place, including this forum full of people who are more educated than average, has fallen so low that the (extremely simple to grasp) concept of ad hominem is out of place and one has to write such disclaimers frequently in order to bring an argument into a discussion.
- solardev 3y ago
  I think it's only human, no? That we even have a fancy Latin phrase for it suggests it's a phenomenon that's been with us for a while, and that the ancients and the greats and the geniuses alike have had to work to keep in check. I know I certainly had to hold that impulse in check, myself. At first I was like "Oh god, what shenanigans is that guy up to now." And then I read the article and realized wait, this guy I dislike might actually have a point this time. I say that not to be protective, really, but to point out that I think they may have a case here even though I find their entire operation suspect.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  One of of the two “disclaimers” you cite is an common attempt to reinforce one’s own an argument by painting it as a statement against bias, which is a subtle form (positive) ad hominem, not an attempt to avoid ad hominem and focus on pure rational argumentation.

sneak 3y ago

I disagree. This seems like a blatant 1A violation by the state: > AB 587 passed in September 2022, requiring social media platforms to submit a "terms of service report" semi-annually to California's attorney general, providing "a detailed description of content moderation practices used" and "information about whether, and if so how, the social media company defines and moderates" hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. Under the law, social media platforms must also provide information and statistics on any content moderation actions taken in those categories. All of the things listed, with the exception of foreign political interference, are protected expression. This is the government trying to outsource censorship.

growse 3y ago
How is this different to any other sort of regulation?
rangerelf 3y ago
I disagree. "X" does those things as part of a profit generating enterprise; if those things affect the greater population then they absolutely should be disclosed. And before someone says "What about Meta? What about Google? What about Youtube?" Yep, them too. They should all disclose the basis of their moderation decisions. Because they're used to steer public opinion. Because it's been demonstrated that they have been used to manipulate public perception to the detriment of groups of people. Because people have died from misinformation.
- reaperman 3y ago
  I find it's important to avoid "is/ought" fallacies. I'm not sure my warning actually applies here -- this seems like a properly complicated legal topic and especially whenever something has a lot of contemporary relevance, there's a lot of unexpected flexibility in which precedents are considered vs. ignored. But it's a good rule of thumb to follow nonetheless.
Guvante 3y ago
That isn't Twitter/X's argument though. Their argument is producing the document is forced speech. That argument is not aligned with any precedent. The government absolutely has the right to compel you to talk about your internal actions. Your argument is effectively slippery slope falacy given the government is tracking not enforcing action here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]