4 ms·
the lawsuit, as perceived from x's viewpoint, is forcing the company to have regulations on "hatespeech". which from x's viewpoint then becomes a government con
by stainablesteel 3y ago
the lawsuit, as perceived from x's viewpoint, is forcing the company to have regulations on "hatespeech". which from x's viewpoint then becomes a government control mechanism for censorship
> slanted to make it look like a big liberal conspiracy rather than the good faith operation of a social media platform
good faith is when one can steelman the other point of view.
those files revealed the government was stepping over lines to use censorious mechanisms through the private sector, the conspiracy seems to be on the other side of the aisle. and the lawsuit is over the same principles.
- mrguyorama 3y ago>the lawsuit, as perceived from x's viewpoint, is forcing the company to have regulations on "hatespeech" But it doesn't. This law only requires that a company's moderation policies be public. The company already has these policies internally, regardless of whether they follow them, and there is no room nor justification in the law for punishing someone for "not following" said policies, nor is such a concept even defined. This law has nothing to do with "punishing" Twitter, as it literally cannot, and more to do with making Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Bytedance be transparent about what content they disallow on their platform. You know the once a month post here about "Google killed my email account of 10 years for no reason and I can't contact anyone to ask wtf or get it fixed"? This law is the first step in combating THAT