[happytoexplain]

As much as we would like otherwise, law is a subjective tool. We implement objectivity as much as is feasible, e.g. using careful wording and precedent, but ultimately it would be a fool's errand to attempt to make it 100% objective/deterministic.

All this to say, we tend to oversimplify in our criticisms when more objectivity would have given us a result we agree with.

We tend to agree that we want laws to stop businesses from "tricking people". The specifics vary widely, but the goal itself is unavoidably subjective, so there will always be some subjectivity in its application.

[nradov]

There is no credible accusation that X itself is tricking people here, so your comment is a non sequitur. If particular accounts are posting fraudulent information, then go after those through regular legal channels. The platform is not the problem here.

[polygamous_bat]

> There is no credible accusation that X itself is tricking people here.

That is a purely subjective opinion, since I have talked to elderly people who assumed “blue checkmark = celebrity” and was therefore confused why there are so many such interactions on trivial posts.

[nradov]

Ignorant people sometimes have stupid thoughts. This is not an actual problem, or anything that governments or media companies need to fix.

Even under previous Twitter management, there were a lot of verified accounts who weren't celebrities by any reasonable definition. So only a moron would have ever believed that "blue checkmark = celebrity". We can't protect morons from themselves and it's pointless to even try.

[happytoexplain]

Calling people stupid is a common and low-quality excuse to not regulate. It's part of how societies start to fail. If some percentage of people are mistaken about something, the reality of that is all that matters, regardless of how stupid you personally think those people are.

[nradov]

Nah. There's no evidence to support your claim. You're just making things up to try to find a plausible, friendly sounding excuse to justify government censorship. Citation needed.

Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid. Government regulation can never change that reality.

[Vilian]

>government censorship

If I trick someone I get a fine, if a multi billion company do that is censorship?

[nozzlegear]

> Ignorant people sometimes have stupid thoughts. This is not an actual problem, or anything that governments or media companies need to fix.

The European Union thinks that it is an actual problem though, one that governments or media companies need to fix.

[p3rls]

Whoa, there's nothing trivial about ten thousand mechanical turks wishing each other good morning on a loop bub

[dionidium]

In the United States we have a long, foundational legal tradition in support of Free Speech and free enterprise for this very reason.

The bar is set very high precisely because we know where things go when it's not.

This specific case wouldn't clear a low bar, much less a high one. I, too, have been turned off by Musk's behavior over the last year, but the idea that this case has nothing to do with that is risible.

[ethbr1]

To be fair, US free speech laws have never grappled with as concentrated publishing/social ownership as we have now.