X sues Calif. to avoid revealing how it makes “controversial” content decisions
I didn&#x27;t realize how draconian and big brother-ish the law was:<p>&gt; AB 587 passed in September 2022, requiring social media platforms to submit a &quot;terms of service report&quot; semi-annually to California&#x27;s attorney general, providing &quot;a detailed description of content moderation practices used&quot; and &quot;information about whether, and if so how, the social media company defines and moderates&quot; hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. Under the law, social media platforms must also provide information and statistics on any content moderation actions taken in those categories.<p>This is quite literally thought police. You literally have to send the state&#x27;s lawyers details on how you moderate content to ensure it complies with whatever arbitrary thing the state believes in at the time. This is clearly not constitutional and the state has no business whatsoever dictating how speech is moderated.