As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the law just requires a statement of what the policies are, and the enforcement of those policies. The content of the policies doesn't matter. Surely, the...
As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the law just requires a statement of what the policies are, and the enforcement of those policies. The content of the policies doesn't matter.
Surely, the company formerly known as Twitter can just throw up a policy of "We have no moderation policies regarding these subjects" and be fine?
I don’t know, but it seems like a requirement that a company has public policies and follows them requires some operational consistency? For example, if they said they don’t moderate in some way...
I don’t know, but it seems like a requirement that a company has public policies and follows them requires some operational consistency? For example, if they said they don’t moderate in some way then they can’t moderate that way or they’re in violation of this law. That’s different from doing whatever Musk wants to do that day.
I’m reminded of environmental impact statements, which in theory allow a government agency to make a statement and then do whatever it wants, but in practice add multiple year delays.
So I think to really answer this question we’d need to get into the details.
And that's the unspoken crux of the complaint. Even a policy that says "we just do whatever Phoney Stark wants us to do from minute to minute" would get them a semblance of compliance with minimal...
That’s different from doing whatever Musk wants to do that day.
And that's the unspoken crux of the complaint. Even a policy that says "we just do whatever Phoney Stark wants us to do from minute to minute" would get them a semblance of compliance with minimal effort.
What's actually at risk is their ability to say one thing, and do another.
The crux with the doing whatever they want part is they are supposed to have to put it in writing. Basically admitting 'Yes, we know we think it would be bad for us but we're doing it.' And then...
I’m reminded of environmental impact statements, which in theory allow a government agency to make a statement and then do whatever it wants, but in practice add multiple year delays.
The crux with the doing whatever they want part is they are supposed to have to put it in writing. Basically admitting 'Yes, we know we think it would be bad for us but we're doing it.' And then when you sue, you've got a slam dunk case.
"Your honor, the EIS states this would happen and then it happened. They knew it when they pressed on." Case closed.
Since when is a business, a person? You don't have free speech rights. The 5th is also the one about self-incrimination too which is more in the vein of what Musk is complaining about also. Make...
Since when is a business, a person? You don't have free speech rights. The 5th is also the one about self-incrimination too which is more in the vein of what Musk is complaining about also. Make it make sense, lol.
As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the law just requires a statement of what the policies are, and the enforcement of those policies. The content of the policies doesn't matter.
Surely, the company formerly known as Twitter can just throw up a policy of "We have no moderation policies regarding these subjects" and be fine?
Some business owners resent any and all regulations and throw expensive tantrums about them.
I don’t know, but it seems like a requirement that a company has public policies and follows them requires some operational consistency? For example, if they said they don’t moderate in some way then they can’t moderate that way or they’re in violation of this law. That’s different from doing whatever Musk wants to do that day.
I’m reminded of environmental impact statements, which in theory allow a government agency to make a statement and then do whatever it wants, but in practice add multiple year delays.
So I think to really answer this question we’d need to get into the details.
And that's the unspoken crux of the complaint. Even a policy that says "we just do whatever Phoney Stark wants us to do from minute to minute" would get them a semblance of compliance with minimal effort.
What's actually at risk is their ability to say one thing, and do another.
The crux with the doing whatever they want part is they are supposed to have to put it in writing. Basically admitting 'Yes, we know we think it would be bad for us but we're doing it.' And then when you sue, you've got a slam dunk case.
"Your honor, the EIS states this would happen and then it happened. They knew it when they pressed on." Case closed.
Since when is a business, a person? You don't have free speech rights. The 5th is also the one about self-incrimination too which is more in the vein of what Musk is complaining about also. Make it make sense, lol.