X sues Calif. to avoid revealing how it makes “controversial” content decisions

Let me summarize the core of the argument.

California: “You know what - we’re banning Nazis and Naziism.”

Elon: “This will lead to murdering kittens.”

Elon isn't even a Proud Boy. He's an Ashamed Boy.

I thought he was all about opening up the algorithm

Ah yes, this must be the transparency Musk was talking about. Transparently bullshitting.

California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful."

Ah yes, demonetizing speech is also now an infringement on free speech. Or hindering it's priority (aka visibility on social media). Man first we have been coming for their guns for at least my whole adult life and now we are also going for their free speech! All these constitutional rights being taken away golly conservatives sure have it hard. :'(

Do it. C'mon, Lonnie. Make life worse for yourself. I double dare ya.

Seriously, this passed in September and he bought Twitter in October. Sure, he'd been on the hook for months trying to get out of it, but he's had plenty of time to learn what would be required.

Even if other social media companies agree that this law goes too far, I can't imagine any of them hitching their wagon to his suit. Twitter is so full of nazi bullshit now that the optics would be terrible to do so.

ETA: We've crossed the fucking Rubicon! The only mention of Twitter was the author of the bill being quoted! Maybe we're finally done with the tedious "X, formerly Twitter," nonsense. Crack a beer and start the weekend right now!

Haemorrhaging money quite quickly. No need to change tact, just keep going Elon. I'm watching with fingers crossed that your staff find work elsewhere, soon.

If this was a law asking about policies for protecting against piracy it wouldn't even be a headline. Protect money, fine. Protect humanity, fuck that.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

X Corp. said that if the court did not block the law, California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful."

"The State of California touts AB 587 as a mere 'transparency measure' under which certain social media companies must make their content moderation policies and statistics publicly available," X's complaint said.

X Corp. alleged that AB 587 violates other laws, including the Dormant Commerce Clause—"failing to restrict its extensive reporting requirements to information about Californians"—and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—which grants platforms immunity from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

The author of AB 587, California assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, released a statement saying that the law "is a pure transparency measure that simply requires companies to be upfront about if and how they are moderating content.

Adam Kovacevich, the CEO of the tech industry policy coalition Chamber of Progress, said that "requiring companies to give their content moderation playbook to scammers and conspiracists is a bad idea."

“Even if you don't like anything about Elon Musk’s leadership of X, it’s clear that requiring tech platforms to publish a detailed blueprint of how to work around content moderators will have negative consequences for users online," Kovacevich said.

The original article contains 774 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Only 293,333 days until the remaining 10% of Twitter's value is spent on fines. Or, 1 year if they have 804 violations at once. We can do this! We can end the nightmare.

“up to $15,000 per violation per day.” This is going to get expensive. He might as well move the company out if california.

I was certain at first that the thumbnail was a terraria map screenshot. Sat and looked at it for a while before opening the article and was very confused about why they would use that.

X Corp. said that if the court did not block the law, California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful."

Thats exactly the argument Id make. Hate speech is just speech the state doesn't like. And since when has the state not abused its powers?