5 ms·

> Or would you rather they just continuing applying their own unaccountable and secret moderation with no consequences or oversight? Yes, it is their business.

> Or would you rather they just continuing applying their own unaccountable and secret moderation with no consequences or oversight? Yes, it is their business. If people don't like that and advertisers, etc don't like that then don't use it or advertise there. The market will determine if it's viable or not. The state has no business policing that.

vman81 3y ago
[flagged]
- the_optimist 3y ago
  [flagged]
titzer 3y ago
It's a shock to me that the "free speech absolutists" running X can't be bothered to even put down their policy in writing. Actually, it's not a shock. They don't want it because they're not free speech absolutists and are actually planning on being unaccountable, biased, and corrupt.
- the_optimist 3y ago
  [flagged]
- taylodl 3y ago
  BINGO!!! You sir have hit the nail on the head! We know X is moderating content (so much for "free speech", but that's another issue). What we don't know is on what basis the content is being moderated, what's being moderated, and so forth. In other words, Elon Musk is flat-out lying when he calls X a "free speech" platform. It is not - and that's not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is hiding your moderation policies. That's what this law addresses. Moderation is okay so long as it's done in the open. Everyone is talking about California taking away free speech, what they're really doing is preserving free speech by forcing companies to disclose when speech was moderated. That is serving the public good.
- dahwolf 3y ago
  Musk has never stated to run X/Twitter using absolute free speech. Which makes total sense because you can't run a social network using this principle.
djbusby 3y ago
Markets don't work well without good oversight. A fundamental method of Capitalism is the information imbalance. This law is helping to keep consumers informed - where otherwise they would not be at all.
burnished 3y ago
What philosophical, moral, or economical principle are you basing this off of? Because the free market principle does not reign here; it suggests that prices can be discovered on an open market between rational buyers and rational sellers of roughly equal standing. Thats it.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  > What philosophical, moral, or economical principle are you basing this off of? The Enlightenment - free speech and liberty. They are a speech platform and should not be infringed on upon by the government. The people, ergo the market, will determine if they are viable through popular opinion. If they are as vile and off-putting as some people say then people won't use it and they'll either moderate in a way that makes them viable or die. I mean which way is it? I hear that they are toxic and no one uses it and no one will advertise on it on one hand and on the other hand I hear that it needs to publish their moderation policies and they should not allow speech that certain people don't like.
  - titzer 3y ago
    In other words, all hail our new corporate thought police. The market can do no wrong, right? Sick of getting squashed by big tech? Feel like the market (of billions of dollars of ad money) didn't punish them hard enough? Just launch your own Twitter with that spare $X billion you've got lying around! Free speech for the rich and the advertisers, just like the Enlightenment promised! You keep getting downvoted because the rest of us kinda watched the internet happen for the past 20 years. Where were you?
    - nemo44x 3y ago
      Actually all my comments in this thread are at 1 and one of them at 2. It has been all over the place up and down. And just because a comment is downvoted here doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong. In fact look at all the engagement it has created. Clearly there is a conversation to be had. Trying to dismiss it with quips like yours probably feel good to type but are meaningless. By your comments you belong to a class of people that feels entitled to things you never earned or contributed to and would like an authoritarian government to steal it. This is the worst kind of person. Far worse than a fascist.
mrguyorama 3y ago
And notably, we require certain "truth in advertising" from companies in most democracies, so that they can't lie to you to get your business. These laws have been obscenely weak in the US, for dumb excuse reasons. Making social media platforms open up about their moderation policies so that consumers can make educated decisions about where they want to say what. "We do/do not moderate Q" is advertising when it comes to public platforms, and they should be forced to abide by their advertising.

vman81 3y ago

[flagged]

the_optimist 3y ago
[flagged]

titzer 3y ago

It's a shock to me that the "free speech absolutists" running X can't be bothered to even put down their policy in writing. Actually, it's not a shock. They don't want it because they're not free speech absolutists and are actually planning on being unaccountable, biased, and corrupt.

the_optimist 3y ago
[flagged]
taylodl 3y ago
BINGO!!! You sir have hit the nail on the head! We know X is moderating content (so much for "free speech", but that's another issue). What we don't know is on what basis the content is being moderated, what's being moderated, and so forth. In other words, Elon Musk is flat-out lying when he calls X a "free speech" platform. It is not - and that's not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is hiding your moderation policies. That's what this law addresses. Moderation is okay so long as it's done in the open. Everyone is talking about California taking away free speech, what they're really doing is preserving free speech by forcing companies to disclose when speech was moderated. That is serving the public good.
dahwolf 3y ago
Musk has never stated to run X/Twitter using absolute free speech. Which makes total sense because you can't run a social network using this principle.

djbusby 3y ago

Markets don't work well without good oversight. A fundamental method of Capitalism is the information imbalance. This law is helping to keep consumers informed - where otherwise they would not be at all.

burnished 3y ago

What philosophical, moral, or economical principle are you basing this off of? Because the free market principle does not reign here; it suggests that prices can be discovered on an open market between rational buyers and rational sellers of roughly equal standing. Thats it.

nemo44x 3y ago
> What philosophical, moral, or economical principle are you basing this off of? The Enlightenment - free speech and liberty. They are a speech platform and should not be infringed on upon by the government. The people, ergo the market, will determine if they are viable through popular opinion. If they are as vile and off-putting as some people say then people won't use it and they'll either moderate in a way that makes them viable or die. I mean which way is it? I hear that they are toxic and no one uses it and no one will advertise on it on one hand and on the other hand I hear that it needs to publish their moderation policies and they should not allow speech that certain people don't like.
- titzer 3y ago
  In other words, all hail our new corporate thought police. The market can do no wrong, right? Sick of getting squashed by big tech? Feel like the market (of billions of dollars of ad money) didn't punish them hard enough? Just launch your own Twitter with that spare $X billion you've got lying around! Free speech for the rich and the advertisers, just like the Enlightenment promised! You keep getting downvoted because the rest of us kinda watched the internet happen for the past 20 years. Where were you?
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Actually all my comments in this thread are at 1 and one of them at 2. It has been all over the place up and down. And just because a comment is downvoted here doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong. In fact look at all the engagement it has created. Clearly there is a conversation to be had. Trying to dismiss it with quips like yours probably feel good to type but are meaningless. By your comments you belong to a class of people that feels entitled to things you never earned or contributed to and would like an authoritarian government to steal it. This is the worst kind of person. Far worse than a fascist.

mrguyorama 3y ago

And notably, we require certain "truth in advertising" from companies in most democracies, so that they can't lie to you to get your business. These laws have been obscenely weak in the US, for dumb excuse reasons. Making social media platforms open up about their moderation policies so that consumers can make educated decisions about where they want to say what. "We do/do not moderate Q" is advertising when it comes to public platforms, and they should be forced to abide by their advertising.