8 ms·

these are two completely separate cases. The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain administration officials – namely in the White House, the surge

these are two completely separate cases. The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain administration officials – namely in the White House, the surgeon general, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation – likely “coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content.” What California wants is clarification and explanation of the moderation process as it applies to X. a product disclosure like this is common in nearly every other consumer product in the US. Prop 65 for example routinely mandates this sort of disclosure for lead or cadmium content in a product. The reason musk specifically does not want to disclose this information is because the moderators were all sacked a year ago...i think California knows this. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-layoffs-outsourced-content-moderators/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-layoffs-outso...

jonhohle 3y ago
Last I checked, content moderation can’t cause cancer or birth defects.
- DanHulton 3y ago
  Yes, but if you're not being pedantic for the sake of scoring points, all the aforementioned things are capable of causing significant harm if mishandled, so it's still quite relevant.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    What is the significant harm caused by mishandled content moderation? ... for that matter, what does it mean for content moderation to be "mishandled?"
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      > What is the significant harm Stochastic terrorism.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        That's a very good point and I have no arguments with it. Unfortunately, nothing about the California law really addresses it. The Fifth Circuit Court decision regarding coercion of social media sites will bind to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, so California can't really enforce anything if they disagree with a company's moderation policy. That means the law reduces to perfunctory data collection, and it doesn't really tell consumers anything that logging into the site and going "Gee, this site sure is full of white supremacists advocating stochastic terrorism and nobody does anything about it" wouldn't tell them.
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        Is not the same as actual terrorism.
        DanHulton 3y ago
        Irrelevant, though, as it still causes harm, which is the original differentiator.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    But the government isn't allowed to regulate the speech based on harm unless that harm would result from lawless action which is also incited by the speech and probable to happen based on the speech.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      People should really be more considering this as "Truth in advertising" type law. This isn't about whether Twitter follows it's policies as written, as you would be hard pressed to convict any company for merely not following it's own rules for something that isn't illegal (allowing inflammatory speech on your platform, or even signal boosting such speech), but more at requiring companies be honest about how they moderate their consumer participation. This law is so consumers can make educated choices about the platforms they want to use.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    Having a post arbitrarily or even maliciously being removed from a social media platform being equated to physical harm is an extremely absurd, out of touch, pampered, and privileged position. Mishandling of heavy metals can cause lifelong affects not just to those handling them, but to anyone in the vicinity.[0] it’s estimated that 1M people die per year from lead poisoning[1]. Content moderation cannot directly cause any physical harm. If you consider indirect physical harm related to all social media (which I’d have more sympathy toward), it would not come close to the affects of heavy metals and other substances known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. 0 - https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/20/china-children-mass-lead-poisoning https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/20/china-children... 1 - https://www.who.int/news/item/23-10-2022-almost-1-million-people-die-every-year-due-to-lead-poisoning--with-more-children-suffering-long-term-health-effects https://www.who.int/news/item/23-10-2022-almost-1-million-pe...
seafoam 3y ago
It is not a question of what California wants. California is attempting to coerce. X is arguing that CA's coercion violates both the 1st amendment and Section 230. Glad to engage further if you or others want to address the merits of those arguments. No need to impugn intent onto specific individuals.
- rgbrenner 3y ago
  All laws are coercive. That's how laws work. So I don't even know what your first statement is trying to get at. $15k/day -- 5M/year -- on companies over $100M in gross revenue (much less the several billion generated by Twitter) is not more coercive than many other laws. The penalties for some laws go up to and including death... so this is definitely within the typical range of penalties. The law requires disclosing your policy and how you applied it. Musk is out on a limb if he's claiming that giving stats on what actions were taken is the same as the action itself.
renlo 3y ago
> Prop 65 for example routinely mandates this sort of disclosure for lead or cadmium content in a product. The dangerous (overt?) implication you're making is that some speech is "poisonous" and the government needs to step in and make sure the people aren't being "poisoned"
- jasonjayr 3y ago
  Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater should be protected by the 1A ? That's dangerous, and the law should rightly restrict that
  - pelorat 3y ago
    I think it is, you will get charged for something else, like inciting panic.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    "The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    It is protected. See Brandenburg vs. Ohio. """ The Court in Brandenburg, in a per curiam opinion, held that Ohio's Syndicalism law violated the First Amendment. According to the Court, "constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. """ https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenburg-v--ohio--permissible-restrictions-on-violent-speech.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenbu...
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    The law does not restrict that. "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a myth. Anyone parroting this immediately outs themselves as lacking even the most basic knowledge of first ammendment. The court case where that quote came from was overturned 54 years ago! https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

jonhohle 3y ago

Last I checked, content moderation can’t cause cancer or birth defects.

DanHulton 3y ago
Yes, but if you're not being pedantic for the sake of scoring points, all the aforementioned things are capable of causing significant harm if mishandled, so it's still quite relevant.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  What is the significant harm caused by mishandled content moderation? ... for that matter, what does it mean for content moderation to be "mishandled?"
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    > What is the significant harm Stochastic terrorism.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      That's a very good point and I have no arguments with it. Unfortunately, nothing about the California law really addresses it. The Fifth Circuit Court decision regarding coercion of social media sites will bind to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, so California can't really enforce anything if they disagree with a company's moderation policy. That means the law reduces to perfunctory data collection, and it doesn't really tell consumers anything that logging into the site and going "Gee, this site sure is full of white supremacists advocating stochastic terrorism and nobody does anything about it" wouldn't tell them.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      Is not the same as actual terrorism.
      - DanHulton 3y ago
        Irrelevant, though, as it still causes harm, which is the original differentiator.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  But the government isn't allowed to regulate the speech based on harm unless that harm would result from lawless action which is also incited by the speech and probable to happen based on the speech.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    People should really be more considering this as "Truth in advertising" type law. This isn't about whether Twitter follows it's policies as written, as you would be hard pressed to convict any company for merely not following it's own rules for something that isn't illegal (allowing inflammatory speech on your platform, or even signal boosting such speech), but more at requiring companies be honest about how they moderate their consumer participation. This law is so consumers can make educated choices about the platforms they want to use.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  Having a post arbitrarily or even maliciously being removed from a social media platform being equated to physical harm is an extremely absurd, out of touch, pampered, and privileged position. Mishandling of heavy metals can cause lifelong affects not just to those handling them, but to anyone in the vicinity.[0] it’s estimated that 1M people die per year from lead poisoning[1]. Content moderation cannot directly cause any physical harm. If you consider indirect physical harm related to all social media (which I’d have more sympathy toward), it would not come close to the affects of heavy metals and other substances known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. 0 - https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/20/china-children-mass-lead-poisoning https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/20/china-children... 1 - https://www.who.int/news/item/23-10-2022-almost-1-million-people-die-every-year-due-to-lead-poisoning--with-more-children-suffering-long-term-health-effects https://www.who.int/news/item/23-10-2022-almost-1-million-pe...

seafoam 3y ago

It is not a question of what California wants. California is attempting to coerce. X is arguing that CA's coercion violates both the 1st amendment and Section 230. Glad to engage further if you or others want to address the merits of those arguments. No need to impugn intent onto specific individuals.

rgbrenner 3y ago
All laws are coercive. That's how laws work. So I don't even know what your first statement is trying to get at. $15k/day -- 5M/year -- on companies over $100M in gross revenue (much less the several billion generated by Twitter) is not more coercive than many other laws. The penalties for some laws go up to and including death... so this is definitely within the typical range of penalties. The law requires disclosing your policy and how you applied it. Musk is out on a limb if he's claiming that giving stats on what actions were taken is the same as the action itself.

renlo 3y ago

> Prop 65 for example routinely mandates this sort of disclosure for lead or cadmium content in a product. The dangerous (overt?) implication you're making is that some speech is "poisonous" and the government needs to step in and make sure the people aren't being "poisoned"

jasonjayr 3y ago
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater should be protected by the 1A ? That's dangerous, and the law should rightly restrict that
- pelorat 3y ago
  I think it is, you will get charged for something else, like inciting panic.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  "The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- hellojesus 3y ago
  It is protected. See Brandenburg vs. Ohio. """ The Court in Brandenburg, in a per curiam opinion, held that Ohio's Syndicalism law violated the First Amendment. According to the Court, "constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. """ https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenburg-v--ohio--permissible-restrictions-on-violent-speech.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenbu...
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  The law does not restrict that. "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a myth. Anyone parroting this immediately outs themselves as lacking even the most basic knowledge of first ammendment. The court case where that quote came from was overturned 54 years ago! https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...