|
From FTA: "The law requires social media companies to publicly detail moderation practices around hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. How these concepts are defined, how rules around them are enforced and what users can do to better understand (and if necessary, challenge) the pertinent processes must be submitted twice a year starting in 2024." I fail to see how this can be seen as a free-speech issue - it's not restricting speech nor, as per their other argument, is it "a form of compelled speech". Instead, it's simply making their policies, whatever they are, public. If Xitter wants to promote free speech and not moderate anything, it can, it just needs to say that's what it's doing. If Xitter wants to have free speech, but follow the law and remove anything illegal, it can, it just needs to document that. If Xitter wants to moderate stuff, it totally can, it just needs to say what it's moderating, and how. The reason they're objecting to this, almost certainly isn't to do with free speech, rather the opposite - they will want to retain the ability to moderate things they don't like out of existence whilst pretending that they absolutely don't moderate anything because then they can claim the exemptions that allow them not to be responsible for their moderation. |