X is so dedicated that it’s about to sue the state of California over content moderation handling
At this point, Twitter — er, I mean X — is starting to feel immortal, right? I mean, a lot of people have it installed on some of the best phones around and despite all of the Twitter drama — oof, sorry, I meant X drama — users still hung around and kept the action going.
And now, after my small tangent on intentional mistakes, do you understand why saying “X something” feels odd? I mean, in English, when we combine X with a word, it sounds like ex-something, yada-yada. And now it feels like the language itself has to adapt to Musk’s naming conventions.
Well, would you look at that, this actually goes beyond language and may seep into the law of California itself, because X is suing. And that was just a prime example of what I mean, because it feels like I’m giving an example. And I’m not: the new-age Twitter is suing California!
So, the question on everybody’s mind should be clear: why?
And now, after my small tangent on intentional mistakes, do you understand why saying “X something” feels odd? I mean, in English, when we combine X with a word, it sounds like ex-something, yada-yada. And now it feels like the language itself has to adapt to Musk’s naming conventions.
Today, @X filed a First Amendment lawsuit against California AB 587. As made clear by both the legislative history and public court submissions from the Attorney General in defending the law, the true intent of AB 587 is to pressure social media platforms to “eliminate” certain…
— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) September 8, 2023
Well, it’s because California has this law — with the wonderful name of AB 587 — which requires companies to share details about the processes they have in place for handling content moderation.
But see, X doesn’t like that. Like, the company. More so it’s lawyers, which argue that the law itself is unconstitutional — as in, contradicting the highest law in the US. The lawmen of X Corp. — which sounds like a villainous organization from something like G.I. Joe — suggests that this law is just a tool for pressuring companies into making certain types of decisions.
Of course, as you can imagine, X isn’t the only company that has an issue with the law, among which are Meta (of course), Google, TikTok (duh!) and other less known companies such as Netchoice.
In closing, though, Jesse Gabriel — the author of the law in question — has raised a very valid argument: if X has nothing to hide, then why object to the bill in the first place? Food for thought.
But see, X doesn’t like that. Like, the company. More so it’s lawyers, which argue that the law itself is unconstitutional — as in, contradicting the highest law in the US. The lawmen of X Corp. — which sounds like a villainous organization from something like G.I. Joe — suggests that this law is just a tool for pressuring companies into making certain types of decisions.
In closing, though, Jesse Gabriel — the author of the law in question — has raised a very valid argument: if X has nothing to hide, then why object to the bill in the first place? Food for thought.
FCC OKs Cingular\'s purchase of AT&T Wireless
Things that are NOT allowed: