X marks the spot where free speech clashes with Californian transparency
- Reference: 1694455208
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/09/11/x_california_moderation_law/
- Source link:
The [1]lawsuit [PDF], filed last week under seal, seeks to get X, formerly known as Twitter, out of reporting requirements that came with the passage of [2]AB 587 in September last year. The law includes reporting requirements for large social media platforms on how they moderate content and statistics regarding moderation decisions.
"California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country," California Governor Gavin Newsom [3]said when he signed the bill last year. "This action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day."
[4]
As far as X is concerned, however, the true purpose of AB 587 was "pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech that the State deems undesirable or harmful," lawyers argued in their lawsuit.
[5]
[6]
Neither lawyers for X, X itself or the California AG's office immediately responded to The Register's questions.
The stopped clock that is Elon Musk's Twitter
Musk's lawyers didn't just assert claims that the true purpose of AB 587 was to act as a cudgel against social media companies – they brought receipts too.
Several quotes are included in the suit from related cases and statements made during the legislative process, among them a statement from AB 587 lead author Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel. Per Gabriel, AB 587 is an "important first step in protecting our democracy from the dangerously divisive content that has become all too common on social media."
All the arguments made for AB 587, say X lawyers, mean the true purpose of the law "is crystal clear… to pressure social media companies to eliminate or minimize content that the government has deemed objectionable."
[7]
"If X has nothing to hide, they should have no objection to this bill," Gabriel [8]said of the platform's opposition.
X has been [9]repeatedly criticized since Musk's takeover last year of becoming a haven for hate speech, violence, and misinformation. The company has hit back against reports on the rise of hate on the platform with [10]lawsuits and [11]accusations that such reports exaggerate what has actually happened at the platform, and that such report writers are guilty of causing X's much-publicized [12]loss of revenue mostly driven by [13]fleeing advertisers .
[14]Elon Musk has beef with Bill Gates because he shorted Tesla stock, says biographer
[15]Bombshell biography: Fearing nuclear war, Musk blocked Starlink to stymie Ukraine attack on Russia
[16]The Anti Defamation League is Musk's latest excuse for Twitter's tanking ad revenue
[17]Big Tech has failed to police Russian disinformation, EC study concludes
Yet its lawyers are making a compelling case for why AB 587 might not be the right move to clean it up.
Per the lawsuit, AB 587 "seeks to force social media companies to provide the AG and the public detailed information about how, if at all, they define and moderate the boundaries of the most controversial categories of content." X claims in the suit that categories enforced by AB 587 include "hate speech, racism, extremism, misinformation, political interference and harassment," which it describes as difficult to define and enforce, and "politically charged."
"Because X Corp. must take such positions on these topics as they are formulated by the state , X Corp. is being forced to adopt the State's politically-charged terms, which is a form of compelled speech in and of itself," X's lawyers argued.
[18]
"The First Amendment unequivocally prohibits this kind of interference with a traditional publisher's editorial judgment… that X is a social media platform does not change the analysis."
Whether that argument will hold up in court is unclear – legal experts we contacted regarding the case haven't responded to questions. Plenty of experts have spoken out against AB 587, though, including Santa Clara University School of Law professor Eric Goldman, who made an argument similar to X's not long before the bill passed.
As platforms would be forced to make content moderation decisions based on government-defined categories, "the resulting distortions to the platforms' editorial decision-making constitutes censorship," Goldman [19]said , adding that the bill won't help consumers as platforms will simply "water down the [terms of service]-based disclosures to the point of uselessness."
Goldman said there are several bases for constitutional challenges to AB 587, which he said is "likely to be struck down as unconstitutional at substantial taxpayer expense." It's unclear when the matter could go to trial. If X doesn't manage to get the law tossed, it could face fines of up to $15,000 per violation per day if it chooses not to comply, likely setting up more expensive legal battles. ®
Get our [20]Tech Resources
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.433955/gov.uscourts.caed.433955.1.0.pdf
[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB587
[3] https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/13/governor-newsom-signs-nation-leading-social-media-transparency-measure/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZP@OBKjwH@vj9SQDbkMPCAAAAdA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZP@OBKjwH@vj9SQDbkMPCAAAAdA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZP@OBKjwH@vj9SQDbkMPCAAAAdA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZP@OBKjwH@vj9SQDbkMPCAAAAdA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://twitter.com/AsmJesseGabriel/status/1700247761982214324
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/22/australia_demands_twitter_explain_moderation/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/01/x_corp_lawsuit_ccdh/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/05/twitter_adl_lawsuit/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/17/twitter_ad_revenue_halved/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/05/yaccarino_takes_twitter_helm_early/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/11/gates_musk_beef_biography/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/musk_biography_excerpt/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/05/twitter_adl_lawsuit/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/05/big_tech_vlops/
[18] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZP@OBKjwH@vj9SQDbkMPCAAAAdA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[19] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/08/a-short-explainer-of-why-californias-mandatory-transparency-bill-ab-587-is-terrible.htm
[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Didn't Elon sack all the moderators?
Not all of them, the ones that happened to agree with his world-view on the day in question are still there. Their long term fate is somewhat uncertain though!
Reminds me of when ISIS took over parts of Syria and Iraq to create their caliphate. Reporters were tripping over themselves to try to get interviews with people who stuck around, and most of them just sort of shrugged and said it wasn't that bad. Of course, as someone else pointed out a little later, the people who stuck around were more likely to be people who shared at least some sympathies with the ISIS view of the world. Maybe they aren't full-fledged kool-aid drinkers, but they believe some of the same broad points.
It's basically the same way with the people left at Twitter. Either they are here on a visa, and so don't really have a choice if they want to stay in the US, or they were already the same sort of asshole as Twitler.
I thought he said he was going to automate moderation?
He said Tesla had full self driving autopilot too.
Misunderstanding?
I've only read the article, so I might be missing something, but there seems to be a misunderstanding on both sides.
The law seems to say that all Twitter has to do is provide the state with its the moderation procedures and some stats, not - as the lawyers are implying - that the the state has the right to define them.
The state seems to think that the act of having to admit publicly that its moderation policies are non-existient, discriminatory, whimsical, narcissistic, or whatever will shame Twitter into changing them.
The only people that have a chance of of changing Twitter's policies are advertisers but, apart from silently voting with their feet, I don't think that the big spenders are going to go public with opinions on Twitter's moderation.
Re: Misunderstanding?
The only people that have a chance of of changing Twitter's policies are advertisers but, apart from silently voting with their feet
And that's why Musk is afraid of this law. He doesn't want to be forced to admit Twitter has little moderation now, and producing stats showing that (or showing what is moderated while stuff that used to be moderated is left up for everyone to see) makes it easier for advertisers to justify a decision to leave.
Probably gonna get moderated for this
But musk does NOT care a WHIT about freedom of speech. What he cares about is staying in the public eye, and promoting hate
"The First Amendment unequivocally prohibits this kind of interference with a traditional publisher's editorial judgment… that X is a social media platform does not change the analysis."
You can't claim your not a publisher on one moment because all the post on there are user generated and also want to be classed as a publisher when it suits TwiXer.
If Musk wants to argue that they are a publisher and therefore editorial judgement rights apply, then as a publisher they are responsible for every post on TwiXer including anything that is published that is deemed defamatory or illegal.
'free speech'
Lawl, 'free speech'. The only 'free speech' that 'free speech absolutists' like Elmo care about is their own, or people he agrees with. Elmo's Twitter (X) is blocking messages on a massive scale, but if you're a white supremacist, (after The Grimes Incident) viscerally hate trans people, Elmo has your back.
Nope
Sorry, not going to believe a single thing Twitler has to say on the subject when he was threatening to sue the American Defamation League just a couple days ago because they exercised free speech rights to suggest advertisers not support a platform that has seen a marked rise in hate speech of all stripes. Considering, for all intents and purposes, Twitler is Twitter, as his drug and paranoia fueled whims are the whims of the company, and Twitler has no problems shutting down speech HE doesn't like, the argument the lawyers cooked up is completely empty. And yes, I'm aware the first amendment only applies to governments, not private businesses, but that brings me to my next point.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that fictional entities, which exist only on paper, like Twitter or any other corporation, have no legal rights period. Only meat sack humans have any rights because only meat sack humans actually exist. I have to give one exception, which is press organizations, since they're explicitly named in the US Constitution, but Twitter, IBM, Microsoft, Apple... fuck the whole lot of 'em. The meat sack employees have rights, but the companies themselves are fictional entities that exist only because we all collectively pretend that they do. They're nothing more than some words on a piece of paper. They don't exist any more than the fictional characters do.
Twitter doesn't want to have to admit that its "moderation policies" are basically just whatever Musk likes and doesn't like on any given day.