Elon Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter, faced a legal setback as a federal judge ruled against its attempt to halt the implementation of a new California law, AB 587, regulating online content moderation. This law, effective despite X’s opposition, mandates social media companies with over $100 million in annual revenue to publicly disclose their terms of service, particularly how content is moderated on their platforms.
It further requires these companies to submit semiannual reports to the state’s Attorney General detailing statistics on actions taken to moderate content related to hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.
X’s lawsuit against the state of California argued that AB 587 infringes upon the company’s freedom of speech, claiming it compels social media platforms to engage in speech against their will and take public stances on politically charged issues. However, US District Judge William Shubb dismissed these claims, stating the law’s reporting requirements, while potentially burdensome, do not unjustifiably infringe upon First Amendment rights. He emphasized that the demanded reports are factual, involving objective data about the company’s actions and are not controversial in themselves.
Since Musk’s $44 billion acquisition and subsequent rebranding to X, he has positioned himself as a “free speech absolutist,” challenging traditional content moderation approaches and reinstating previously banned accounts. This stance has stirred controversy, particularly as it has led to a noted uptick in antisemitism and misinformation on the platform, prompting several advertisers to withdraw their content.
Despite these challenges and controversies, the new California regulation stands as a significant move to hold social media platforms accountable for their content moderation practices, demanding transparency in a landscape often criticized for its opacity and arbitrariness in handling online speech.