Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Government

California Governor Signs Law Requiring Social Networks To Post Moderation Rules (theverge.com) 101

Posted by BeauHD from the transparency-measures dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a law aimed at making web platforms monitor hate speech, extremism, harassment, and other objectionable behaviors. Newsom signed AB 587 after it passed the state legislature last month, despite concerns that the bill might violate First Amendment speech protections. AB 587 requires social media companies to post their terms of service online, as well as submit a twice-yearly report to the state attorney general. The report must include details about whether the platform defines and moderates several categories of content, including "hate speech or racism," "extremism or radicalization," "disinformation or misinformation," harassment, and "foreign political interference." It must also offer details about automated content moderation, how many times people viewed content that was flagged for removal, and how the flagged content was handled. It's one of several recent California plans to regulate social media, also including AB 2273, which is intended to tighten regulations for children's social media use.

Newsom's office billed the law as a "first-of-its-kind social media transparency measure" aimed at fighting extremism. In a statement, he said that "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." But the transparency measures are similar to those of several other proposals, including parts of two currently blocked laws in Texas and Florida. (Ironically, the other parts of these bills are aimed at preventing companies from removing conservative content that frequently runs afoul of hate speech and disinformation rules.) Courts haven't necessarily concluded that the First Amendment blocks social media transparency rules. But the rules still raise red flags. Depending on how they're defined, they could require companies to disclose unpublished rules that help bad actors game the system. And the bill singles out specific categories of "awful but lawful" content -- like racism and misinformation -- that's harmful but often constitutionally protected, potentially putting a thumb on the speech scale.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Governor Signs Law Requiring Social Networks To Post Moderation Rules More

California Governor Signs Law Requiring Social Networks To Post Moderation Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Social Networks to exit CA next?

    • That will never happen. CA has nearly 40mil people.

      All this law is doing is requiring more transparency. And god knows it needs it. The problem is this law doesnt solve what I think is facebooks biggest problem with its moderation;- Its reliance on completely useless AI.

      Everyone I know has had multiple strikes against their account for absolutely capricious nonsense. None of them are alt-right type foaming at the mouth conspiracy lunatics. its just moms and dads and a fair smattering of musicians, coders, g

  • I suggest a new category of communication system be created on the interwebs then, labelling itself anti-social media.
    Then, repugnant as its content might be, at least it wouldn't be subject to this law.
    And sensitive people would know to stay away.

  • So... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2022 @06:56PM (#62882723) Journal

    Has Slashdot signed up, then? Sure looks like it meets the standard of a 'social media platform' as defined in the bill.

    Seems like they made it so they can fine any social media platform they don't like the answers from to the tune of $15k/day and only city attorneys of cities larger than 750k people or a few others can sue. Hmm, I can't see how that would ever be abused.

    • Wonder what happens if the company doesn't try to do any business in California. Will they try to fine out-of-state businesses for violations? This is a similar question as when they were contemplating taxing people for moving out of state.
    • Then yes, /. will have to post their moderation policy and content guidelines if they haven't already.

      I'm opposed to the twice yearly reporting requirement it's unnecessary it's enough to require the policy to be posted clearly. It is well worth requiring transparency here so that companies have to owe up when they allow extremism for the sake of profit.

      It's one of those things where the public has a right to know. Like truth in advertising laws

      • No, a thousand times no. Shit like this just gives Republicans another example to point at and say "look at those crazy liberals trampling on our rights!” Like it or not, we have first and second amendments, and the sooner the Democratic Party realizes this fact, the less power the Republicans will have to beat Democrats over the head with a constitution that they clearly haven't read either.

        • Couldn't agree more. I hate mean-spirited, ugly speech, and I hate guns, but we're stuck with both in this country no matter how much taxpayer money & time we throw at them. It's a total waste of resources. Fighting such things has also been shown time & time again to be a major loser at the ballot box, often as unpopular with (some) liberals as with conservatives.

          Our elected representatives need to focus on problems we can actually solve which have broader public support.

          --
          We will soon h

        • Re:If they're doing business in California (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2022 @08:16PM (#62882927)
          You can't just not do things that are right because somebody's going to bitch about them. That's just spinelessness.

          When Republicans pull that shit you have to tell him to go fuck themselves like John fetterman did. The problem with the Democrats is they try to go high when the Republicans go low and the Republicans just punch them in the nuts. The correct response to that is to get down and dirty in the mud. Politics is not a clean game

          • The correct response to that is to get down and dirty in the mud. Politics is not a clean game

            "When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty -but only the pig enjoys it."

            Playing dirty is a race to the bottom. It leads to places like January 6th, packing courts with biased judges, and civil war. We need better leaders, not ones who fight dirty.

            • you go wash up and eat it. Jan 6th is because we *didn't* get down and dirty. We tried to play the high ground and they kicked us in the balls. Then instead of doing anything about it we said "Ow! My Balls! That's mean!" and kept saying that for 4 years while they kept punching us in the balls.

              I'm tired of my balls hurting. I'm fighting back.

          • Theres a (slightly ugly) metaphor I've heard about Australian politics here which has a pretty similar dynamics.

            Labor keeps acting like the LNP are a friendly respectful party deep down, and if Labor keeps acting nice and compromising with it then eventually LNP will start acting nice and compromising with them too. Meanwhile everytime the LNP get into power they start up with police raids on Union officers looking for evidence that Labor , uh well I'm not sure, the police never actually find other than th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          I think this is a great idea because of the exact reasons you oppose it. Social media has censored and stifled free speech long enough. They will probably never be held accountable for the damage they have done but at least clear and concise rules on how they regulate speech will both sides to keep honest.

          But I have to ask why are you so opposed to republicans having access to the rules of moderation. Are you afraid they might have a honest complaint and this might just be what they need to prove it

      • It's one of those things where the public has a right to know.

        Why does the public have a right to know the details of a private forum?

        That's like saying the next time you hold one of your Communist Party USA meetings in your outhouse, you have to write the minutes on the leaves you didn't use and give them to the mayor for distribution, because the public has a right to know. That's bullshit. The public doesn't have a right to anything that happens in a private forum. You should be free to gripe with your comrades about how life is unfair for people that demand a silv

        • Why does the public have a right to know the details of a private forum?

          So people know what they are signing up for before joining a private forum. It's pretty basic contract law to me.

          • So people know what they are signing up for before joining a private forum.

            Who cares?? It's not like someone, upon realizing that the private forum he joined is full of complete assholes, can't just leave and never return.

            Or do you think that once exposed to stupidity, people are tainted forever?

        • Did you miss the part about truth and advertising? These are private companies not private forums. They have a license to do business in California and with that license comes certain responsibilities. If I'm signing up for an account and effectively doing business with them as a citizen of California I have a right to know if I'm being manipulated and how I'm being manipulated.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 )

            Did you miss the part about truth and advertising?

            I ignored it because that's a completely moot point. User generated content is not an advertisement. That would be like going to a bar, and one of the patrons tells you that he'll pay you fifty cents to suck his dick, so thinking you'll be a half dollar richer, you do so, and he then says "oh I was just kidding, I don't have any money!", then you call the police on the business owner for false advertising because you were lied to by some guy that he doesn't even know, but you say he's responsible anyways be

    • I am not sure, but from the summary it sounds like slashdot for example could simply refer them to how the metamoderation system works - which amounts to, 'no we generally don't delete stuff, just let it get modded down,' and that would satisfy the requirement.

      I.e. the mandate is to specify whether and how you will censor, not to do so in a particular way (beyond existing laws against copyright infringement, threads, libel, and so on.)

      • There's more to the law than that (Score:5, Informative)

        by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2022 @07:46PM (#62882873) Journal

        > from the summary it sounds like slashdot for example could simply refer them to how the metamoderation system works

        Don't rely on the summary, it leaves out a lot, though at least the law was linked in the story [ca.gov] and yes, I read it before commenting. Under this law, you have to do more than just post your ToS, you have to make reports about how many posts you moderated ("actioned") and for which categories and also to send them your definitions of categories like "hate speech" and to submit regular reports.

        If they find your answers wanting for some reason, they can fine you $15k/day, but they've made sure that only city attorneys of larger cities (over 750k) or a few other state officials can sue under this law. Of course, we're supposed to pretend this strange and arbitrary limit on city size isn't an attempt to gerrymander things in their favor or selectively enforce this.

    • If Slashdot had $100,000,000 in revenue last year (22680) I will eat Cowboy Neal's weight in hot grits. Regardless, the law seems like government overreach to me: "Don't piss us off and we'll let you keep posting." seems like adequate TOS when there are lots of choices and the service is free. But at least it isn't blatantly unconstitutional.
  • You better hope your website doesn't get included into the category of "Social Media"! Also, since when is it not ok to be too stupid to believe BS trash you find on social media? Thank you for protecting those who can't think critically themselves, I don't know where we'd all be without you, man!

  • The problem is not having the rules posted. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2022 @08:06PM (#62882901)

    I wish I could find the video again but it was a person playing out the discussion between someone that got a "time out" on a social media platform and the rule enforcers on the platform. The discussion quickly went in circles. The platform policy enforcers kept saying how important it was to follow the rules, be kind, and to read and understand the rules. This while the person that got banned kept asking which specific rule was violated. What rule was violated? Well, you really need to read and understand the rules. But what specific rule was violated? They refused to say. The video was a not an actual conversation with any specific platform, just play acting out how this discussion goes. No doubt this person was banned before or knew someone that was banned. The guy didn't mention any specific platform, and likely because if he did then he'd get banned for it.

    There's all kinds of videos out there of discussions between people that got banned from some social media platform or another and the rule enforcers refusing to specify how the rules were violated. The point of the rules is to have then as open to interpretation as possible so they can ban those they disagree with and keep the most vile people imaginable on the platform because they want to claim they have a policy of free speech.

    The rules are often posted for all to see, so I don't see how this law fixes the problem. The problem is that the rules aren't enforced fairly. I don't know how to solve that problem because rules on good behavior will invariably have some room for interpretation. If we can't post anything that offends someone then we can't have a meaningful discussion because someone somewhere will find anything offensive. This is kind of like filters on porn including the term "breast". Do that and there's no people getting information on breast feeding, breast cancer, cooking a chicken breast, or making certain styles of garments that have a piece of cloth that covers the midsection of the body. We have people speaking in code and intentional misspellings to avoid the filters. Because the bots that try to filter comments on social media don't understand parody we have some of the most hilarious burns posted on social media get through the filters but people get banned for quoting sections of legislation. The law of the land is apparently too much to post on social media today.

    • ^^ THIS 100%. Mod up as insightful as you beautifully summarized the problem the bullshit hate speech:

      If we can't post anything that offends someone then we can't have a meaningful discussion because someone somewhere will find anything offensive. This is kind of like filters on porn including the term "breast". Do that and there's no people getting information on breast feeding, breast cancer, cooking a chicken breast, or making certain styles of garments that have a piece of cloth that covers the midsect

      • I should give credit where it is due as I didn't think that up on my own. I paraphrased Dr. Jordan Peterson in an interview about free speech to come up with that summary of the problem. I don't believe he used the example of filtering the word "breast", that I saw from somewhere else.

        It appears Dr. Jordan Peterson is not popular on Slashdot so I'm reluctant to mention his name even though he is an excellent source for commentary on societal problems. It seems just mentioning his name gets an instant dow

        • Thanks for the background. I don't always agree with Peterson but I like to hear his discussions as he can occasionally have some good insight. He is (partially) hated because he tells men to take responsibility for their lives. Go figure.

          You may be interested in what the Philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote about hate speech that I saw on this video [youtu.be]

          John Stewart Mill argued that if we censor hate speech our fundamental beliefs of what is right and wrong are not tested. If our beliefs aren't argued against

          • He is also hated because he spoke out against a Canadian law that outlawed misgendering people. A boneheaded law that would be unconstitutional in the states, but I don't know enough about Canadian constitutional matters to have an opinion on if it is an issue there.

    • It sounds like what happened when reddit banned /r/thedonald during the BLM riots of 2020. The admins kept giving vague and passive-aggressive answers to the mods about why certain restrictions were happening much like what was described :"oh you violated certain rules. >What Rules?. Certain rules against violence. >What violence specifically?. Just violence", etc, until the subreddit was banned outright.

      But anyone with 2 brain cells could have told you that the decision to ban was already made and no

  • Besides the fact much of this is basically a second amendment violation, the other problem he will have is that the companies in his dictatorship are not incorporated there, but rather all the Facebooks and Twitters are in Delaware or another tax-friendly state.

    Any company still remaining in Nazi California will soon be leaving for other states if they haven’t already.

    • Second Amendment? Which second amendment? Perhaps the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarentees free speech (and prohibits compelled speech)?

      Last I checked, this wasn't a law prohibiting people purchasing firearms, but it wouldn't surprise me, as California wants only criminals armed.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        They're talking about limiting free speech from the perspective that words may lead to violence and information flows are not subject to free speech since they are a weapon wielded by private entities, foreign governments and people alike.

        The argument is that even if information flows are a dangerous weapon, then you have to treat access to it under the second amendment.

  • They donâ(TM)t and wonâ(TM)t follow them.

  • Let's Try This Again: "Hate Speech" (Score:3)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2022 @09:33PM (#62883057) Journal

    The problem is, who is it that defines "hate speech". The CBC in Canada deletes pretty much anything that is even slightly right of centre, and they don't like people calling a spade a spade, even if it is in favour of a so called left wing issue. They are so anti offend anti "trigger" that meaningful dialog is not possible. And of course there are sites where the opposite is true. But I'd rather avoid CBC-like moderation anywhere.

    • It's more insidious than that. First, they got most people on board with the concept of "hate speech". Then they deemed themselves as the sole arbiters of what constitutes "hate speech". Now they redefined words to mean whatever they choose, often as "hate speech", so long as it furthers their goal of acquiring, maintaining, and increasing their power. Remember: the issue is never what they say it is on its face. It's always about their power.

  • I want to know the salary range for every single position in CA.

  • vague definitions and my food preferences (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Thursday September 15, 2022 @12:25AM (#62883305)
    Do we have any universal standard for what is hate speech? Is dislike of bananas hate speech? Is objection to illegal immigrants hate speech? When does objection to any one political party become claimable as hate speech? When any one party can claim something is hate speech, without other parties sustaining the validity, this can become a means for suppression of political opposition. If I say I hate Hawaiian pizza, can pineapple growers get social media to ban me?

    • Hate speech has a very simple definition: it is anything which interferes with the acquisition, or continuation of, established political power.

      Do not for a moment believe that an otherwise unbiased person hears someone malign an entire class of people and as a consequence thinks to themselves, "Maybe I should hate everyone in an identifiable group without reason..." Rather, hate speech reveals the divisions created by bad public policy, policy which benefits existing political power at the expense of e

      • Hate speech has a very simple definition: it is anything which interferes with the acquisition, or continuation of, established political power.

        And here I always thought "hate speech" was anything said that disagrees with the listener's beliefs in any way.

  • Better to mandate the open-sourcing of social media platforms, and break up the monopolies.

  • Remember when everyone had their own forums and websites and just decided for themselves what was appropriate? Ah, good times.

    Now everything has to be advertiser safe and is subject to politicized "fact checks" which have only harmed the truth.

  • ok for this... (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday September 15, 2022 @07:39AM (#62883741) Journal

    ...as long as the rules are applied equally.

    I mean, if it's wrong to hate on blacks for their skin color or wish death to homosexuals (both of which are absolutely wrong, in case that's unclear), the SAME standards need to apply to people who hate on wipipo or wish death to Trump.

    Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rossz ( 67331 )

      Not the same thing. Hating on people because of their failed attempt at insurrection is nowhere close to being the same as being racist.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by argStyopa ( 232550 )

        Witness the IMMEDIATE assertion that "rules are for you, not for me".

        Predictable.

        People breaking into the capital was heinous and they need to be punished, but the hilarious overreach at calling it 'insurrection' makes you an obvious laughingstock.

        Are there a lot of insurrections where nobody fires a gun? And where some people knock down the velvet tour ropes while other people stand them back up?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rossz ( 67331 )

          Storming the capital and threatening to execute elected officials is the very definition of insurrection. You can deny it all you want, but we have your buddies on video attempting to overthrow our government.

          • It's astonishing how protective Democrats are of our "sacred institutions" after Jan 6.

            IIRC May 29 BLM protests breached security lines at the White House and Treasury, and were violent enough for the SS to issue a 'code Red' alert, taking the President, Melania, and their son to the bunker.
            And then several days of curfews followed.

            I don't recall anyone asserting their attacks were an insurrection?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rossz ( 67331 )

              Deflection much?

              Ignoring your claim entirely because it is not relevant. Your buddies are guilty of insurrection. We have it on video so you can't deny it happening. They belong in prison along with their leader.

    • Is it wrong to hate people for their politics? Is it wrong to hate Nazis?

      As for wishing death on someone that's slight more extreme than just hate.

  • Requiring that rules be posted means nothing. The state can not enforce moderation rules since that would be a 1st Amendment violation.

    I know on some platforms the rules mean nothing. I've been banned numerous times on one particular platform even though I did not break the posted rules because the moderator simply disagreed and there is no system to seek redress.

  • Their "statement" is so generic it means nothing, and I see people being fb jailed for bizarre, or no, reason.

    • I fondly recall being facebook jailed for promoting the murder of "Limu the Emu" , from those annoying liberty mutual ads.

  • They already post their rules. The only thing that could have any effect is if Calif established a cause of action if someone were unjustly punished. Meanwhile, that is also evil, because now we are giving legislative power to these companies.

    They need to be regulated as common carriers, where they have NO say over what speech occurs, but if a law is broken, they have an obligation to report that to the authorities. And nothing more.

  • A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat (Score:3)

    by thunderclees ( 4507405 ) on Thursday September 15, 2022 @12:55PM (#62884605)

    So basically censorship.
    CA will apply the law to suppress discussion on forums that allow comments the current regime does not agree with and ignore those that serve its purposes or fit with its agenda.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Close