X is taking California to court over AB 587, a new law forcing social media companies to reveal their content moderation methods. This law demands transparency regarding how these platforms handle hate speech, extremism, and misinformation.
(Photo : JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images)
A newly constructed X sign is seen on the roof of the headquarters of the social media platform previously known as Twitter, in San Francisco, on July 29, 2023.
Challenging California Law
Engadget reported that X has filed a lawsuit against the state of California challenging a new law, AB 587, that mandates social media companies to disclose their content moderation practices.
Under this law, social media platforms are required to make public their strategies for addressing hate speech, extremism, misinformation, and related issues, along with internal moderation procedures.
Legal representatives for X contend that this law is unconstitutional and may result in censorship. They argue that AB 587 seems designed to pressure companies like X Corp. into removing, demonetizing, or deprioritizing content protected by the Constitution.
X asserts that the true intent of the law is to compel social media platforms to eliminate specific constitutionally-protected content deemed problematic by the State.
The lawsuit contends that X has the right to privately apply its own definitions and moderation methods on its platform, essentially expressing itself.
While this might seem peculiar, legally and contextually, it's not without precedent. The argument is that the company engages in a protected "editorial" form of speech.
California's AB 587
One year ago, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 587 into law, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in understanding how these platforms influence public discourse and shape the content we encounter on social media daily.
Starting in 2024, social media companies must biannually disclose their approaches to handling issues such as hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.
This includes definitions, enforcement rules, and user options for clarity and potential challenges to these practices.
California has positioned itself firmly on the government involvement spectrum, driven by its progressive nature and its status as the birthplace and testing ground for numerous tech giants.
For instance, TechCrunch reported that the state's privacy legislation is often viewed as a potential model for a nationwide law aiming to safeguard consumers from tech companies' actions.
In response to the legal action, Jesse Gabriel, the California Assemblymember who authored the bill, stated that AB 587 is solely aimed at promoting transparency.
He emphasized that the law does not impose specific content moderation policies but rather mandates companies to openly disclose their content moderation approaches.
He further commented that if X has nothing to hide, then they should have no objection to this bill. This type of rhetoric is often used in cases of perceived government overreach, such as the controversial stop-and-frisk policies in New York.
It's important to consider that Gabriel represents a government that, for various reasons we won't delve into here, routinely engages in intrusions into private data, albeit on a personal level.
Related Article : Apple Unexpectedly Backs the California Right to Repair Bill for Accessibility, Sustainability
