5 ms·

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

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.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    "Slippery slope" and "ad hominem" are the names of fallacies. A fallacy is a defective step in logical reasoning. Hearers shouldn't be persuaded by fallacies; they're deployed in persuasive speech because (a) many people aren't familiar with logic, and find them persuasive, or (b) because the speaker isn't familiar with logic, or (c) because the speaker is out of logical arguments, but is still determined to win the argument. Or some combination of the three.
rgbrenner 3y ago
The Texas and Florida laws are not equivalent to the CA law: Texas HB 20 prohibits the censorship of content based on viewpoint Florida SB 7072 ... prohibits platforms from removing certain types of accounts. So both laws require companies to engage in a type of speech. The CA law does no such thing: it just requires companies to disclose their policy and how it was applied.
- dylan604 3y ago
  If these "laws" are deemed valid under protection from the first amendment, then why are the laws necessary anyways? Why not just go after the offender for violating the first amendment?
  - solardev 3y ago
    The states don't have the time and money to go after millions of individuals, so they try to curtail it at the provider side instead. Also to send a message. A lot of it is just political virtue signaling. (edit: sorry, I misread the parent. Individuals cannot violate the 1A, only governments can)
  - Chabsff 3y ago
    It's necessary because some (let's face it, X) social media companies are suspected of lying (aka engaging in fraud) to consumers by claiming that they are taking aggressive action against hate speech while not actually doing so. Sure, they could just take them to court for that fraud and get that information via discovery, but just compelling companies to publicly disclose the info bypasses all that and puts the decision making back into the hands of the consumers. And what is more American than that?
  - bcrosby95 3y ago
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but only the government can violate the 1st amendment, not companies or individuals. Note that that doesn't mean a company cannot violate a law with a basis in free speech. The 1st amendment isn't the only law when it comes to this - this is where state laws step in.
harpooniker 3y ago
How would it restrict speech?
- solardev 3y ago
  I think it would have a chilling effect on social media providers who will have to think "how will our policies and practices look to California" (and other states with similar laws). If they have to report the changes every year, it basically strongly pressures a company to report that they are following whatever is politically correct at the moment. It's a slippery slope that approaches/enables prior restraint. IMO only and IANAL.
  - harpooniker 3y ago
    How would it show they are following what it politically correct? For example if they ban a post for something that would be reflected but if they don't that's not shown
    - solardev 3y ago
      Sorry, could you please rephrase that? Didn't quite catch it?
      - harpooniker 3y ago
        Can you provide an example of how it can chill political speech
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    The reality is that not doing it is also a slippery slope with greater incline. Avoiding one slope jeopardizes another.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rgbrenner 3y ago
    The law has no penalties for the policy you implement. So AB 587 isn't restraining any speech. If CA passes another law that uses the information to restrain speech, then that law may be unconstitutional. But AB 587 doesnt become unconstitutional by imagining all the ways it could be used unconstitutionally.
fluidcruft 3y ago
I've mentioned this before, but the speech of Twitter users isn't Twitter's speech. So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever. Add to that the fact that Twitter (and all social media) are absolutely not interested in making their user's speech their own and being responsible for it. There's not even any compelled speech argument that Twitter is being forced to speak about something it does not want to. Twitter is a corporation, not a person. It has no right to exist and can have its business license revoked. Now, if Twitter does want to make each Twitter user's speech its own speech, then maybe Twitter might have grounds to make a 1A stand. But as is Twitter and all social media absolutely do not want to be held responsible for what they publish so, frankly, they can pound sand. It would be different if Twitter were considered similar to a newspaper where Twitter acted as editor and could be held accountable for what they publish. But they will fight that tooth and nail.
- solardev 3y ago
  I haven't looked at this in a bit, but I thought that companies are exempt from their users' speech only if they don't make editorial decisions (and Twitter does, like reddit or HN or Slashdot). Am I mistaken?
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    Companies are allowed to moderate their platforms under Section 230. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
    - solardev 3y ago
      Thank you!
  - bbatsell 3y ago
    That is something oft-repeated in conservative circles without a shred of basis in law. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA does the exact opposite. It was written to explicitly _grant_ immunity when companies moderate in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

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.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  "Slippery slope" and "ad hominem" are the names of fallacies. A fallacy is a defective step in logical reasoning. Hearers shouldn't be persuaded by fallacies; they're deployed in persuasive speech because (a) many people aren't familiar with logic, and find them persuasive, or (b) because the speaker isn't familiar with logic, or (c) because the speaker is out of logical arguments, but is still determined to win the argument. Or some combination of the three.

rgbrenner 3y ago

The Texas and Florida laws are not equivalent to the CA law: Texas HB 20 prohibits the censorship of content based on viewpoint Florida SB 7072 ... prohibits platforms from removing certain types of accounts. So both laws require companies to engage in a type of speech. The CA law does no such thing: it just requires companies to disclose their policy and how it was applied.

dylan604 3y ago
If these "laws" are deemed valid under protection from the first amendment, then why are the laws necessary anyways? Why not just go after the offender for violating the first amendment?
- solardev 3y ago
  The states don't have the time and money to go after millions of individuals, so they try to curtail it at the provider side instead. Also to send a message. A lot of it is just political virtue signaling. (edit: sorry, I misread the parent. Individuals cannot violate the 1A, only governments can)
- Chabsff 3y ago
  It's necessary because some (let's face it, X) social media companies are suspected of lying (aka engaging in fraud) to consumers by claiming that they are taking aggressive action against hate speech while not actually doing so. Sure, they could just take them to court for that fraud and get that information via discovery, but just compelling companies to publicly disclose the info bypasses all that and puts the decision making back into the hands of the consumers. And what is more American than that?
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but only the government can violate the 1st amendment, not companies or individuals. Note that that doesn't mean a company cannot violate a law with a basis in free speech. The 1st amendment isn't the only law when it comes to this - this is where state laws step in.

harpooniker 3y ago

How would it restrict speech?

solardev 3y ago
I think it would have a chilling effect on social media providers who will have to think "how will our policies and practices look to California" (and other states with similar laws). If they have to report the changes every year, it basically strongly pressures a company to report that they are following whatever is politically correct at the moment. It's a slippery slope that approaches/enables prior restraint. IMO only and IANAL.
- harpooniker 3y ago
  How would it show they are following what it politically correct? For example if they ban a post for something that would be reflected but if they don't that's not shown
  - solardev 3y ago
    Sorry, could you please rephrase that? Didn't quite catch it?
    - harpooniker 3y ago
      Can you provide an example of how it can chill political speech
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  The reality is that not doing it is also a slippery slope with greater incline. Avoiding one slope jeopardizes another.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rgbrenner 3y ago
  The law has no penalties for the policy you implement. So AB 587 isn't restraining any speech. If CA passes another law that uses the information to restrain speech, then that law may be unconstitutional. But AB 587 doesnt become unconstitutional by imagining all the ways it could be used unconstitutionally.

fluidcruft 3y ago

I've mentioned this before, but the speech of Twitter users isn't Twitter's speech. So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever. Add to that the fact that Twitter (and all social media) are absolutely not interested in making their user's speech their own and being responsible for it. There's not even any compelled speech argument that Twitter is being forced to speak about something it does not want to. Twitter is a corporation, not a person. It has no right to exist and can have its business license revoked. Now, if Twitter does want to make each Twitter user's speech its own speech, then maybe Twitter might have grounds to make a 1A stand. But as is Twitter and all social media absolutely do not want to be held responsible for what they publish so, frankly, they can pound sand. It would be different if Twitter were considered similar to a newspaper where Twitter acted as editor and could be held accountable for what they publish. But they will fight that tooth and nail.

solardev 3y ago
I haven't looked at this in a bit, but I thought that companies are exempt from their users' speech only if they don't make editorial decisions (and Twitter does, like reddit or HN or Slashdot). Am I mistaken?
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  Companies are allowed to moderate their platforms under Section 230. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
  - solardev 3y ago
    Thank you!
- bbatsell 3y ago
  That is something oft-repeated in conservative circles without a shred of basis in law. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA does the exact opposite. It was written to explicitly _grant_ immunity when companies moderate in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230