Waitman Gobble shared a comment of this post/conversation

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:45:03 -0400 from hubzilla

did california just ban political memes?

the internet is awash in claims that “califonia just banned political memes” with new bill AB 2655.

it’s all online and easy to read. the truth of the matter is somewhat more nuanced and so, in the interest of furthering understanding, let’s see what it actually says because, honestly, in many ways it’s worse than what some are fretting about but it also seems to have a fair few exemptions and loopholes, but that, oddly enough, may make it even worse and what many are calling the “safe bits” seem designed to clothe wolves as sheep and set them in the pen.

#free_speech #free_press #politics

Waitman Gobble

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:42:50 -0400 from Get Ready To Rumbly

not really, it says that social media companies with at least 1 million california users in the past 12 months must remove materially deceptive posts where an ordinary person would believe that the video was true. Of course there's satire... But satire defense probably won't hold up if it's not actually satire :)

Waitman Gobble

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:46:40 -0400 from Get Ready To Rumbly

it also points out there are already laws which prevent a campaign from using deceptive false videos, etc, against a political opponent. Like posting a fake thing saying your opponent is going to raise taxes by 200%

Marshall Sutherland

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 17:09:58 -0400 from hubzilla

We live in a world where fact checkers fact check the posts on satirical sites, so I am not as optimistic as you about how this will be implemented.

Waitman Gobble

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:30:16 -0400 from Get Ready To Rumbly

I think this will mostly affect Elon Musk personally. Facebook is known to delete posts and has no concept of satire. Calling flat-out lies "free speech" is bologna.

Marshall Sutherland

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 19:11:32 -0400 from hubzilla

Calling flat-out lies "free speech" is bologna.

I've got two problems with that:

California Constitution: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
Who decides what is truth vs. lie?

Waitman Gobble

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 19:57:28 -0400 from Get Ready To Rumbly

yeah sure as long as they are responsible for what they post. going door to door making up a story about a neighbor with 30 kids locked in the basement isn't "sentiment" AFAIK

Haakon Meland Eriksen (Els Mussols)

Sun, 22 Sep 2024 05:50:18 -0400 from Streams at els Mussols

Interesting questions, indeed.

The law as stated is reactive rather than preventive, i.e. threats and harassment are allowed and the harm these cause to the victim are okay to happen, repair is the assumed possible remedy and not the total destruction of the victim and unrepairability, and the perp may suffer consequences.

This like Microsoft Internet Information Service with Allow Any, Any versus Apache with Deny Any, Any - both are wrong.

There is a really great article about lying at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/ .

The crux of the matter is do you know what you say is untrue and are you trying to convince me what you know to be untrue to be true, then you are lying, regardless of being successful or not at being deceptive.

At university prior to about 1550, it was thought and taught to be true the Sun revolved around the Earth, then Copernicus showed it to be the Earth around the Sun. They were saying something not true for millenia, but they were not lying, because they did not know better.

People today, who do not know better, are not lying when saying stuff that is not true. However, quite a few do know better, and are thus lying.

Waitman Gobble

Sun, 22 Sep 2024 10:08:08 -0400 last edited: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 10:18:25 -0400 from Get Ready To Rumbly

There was recently a lawsuit filed to stop the CA law, however there are these issues from what I understand:

The person who filed the lawsuit publishes parody videos and marks them "parody" which complies with the CA law.
There are other states (such as Alabama) which have more restrictive laws about parody videos, compared with the CA law.

So it's not clear what the person is complaining about, specifically.

I think it's ok to be able to publish what you want as long as you are held responsible. So some Russian dude posts a video claiming that candidate Y has herpes so don't vote for them because that person has cooties. 3 million "bots" like the video and 5 million russians "like" the video so 20 million people in the USA "like" the video and all the news stations are talking about candidate having herpes.

So, is this "Sentiment" and should/can they be held responsible for their post?

Richard Gere was the target of a smear campaign, about "gerbling" which was a rumor started by one person who intentionally attempted to defame the actor with no evidence (richard gere reportedly had no idea how the person got the idea he was into gerbil stuffing lol) Supposedly it was actor Sylvester Stalone who started it, just because he hated Gere. So, were there damages? Lawsuits? it seems Even some people today likely believe that gerbil lie is true.

But this new law addresses a new issue: let's say Stalone posted fake videos generated by AI that show Gere shooting gerbils out his anus. Is this "Sentiment" and/or "opinion" and "protected speech"

Marshall Sutherland

Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:27:31 -0400 from hubzilla

Waitman Gobble wrote:

But this new law addresses a new issue: let's say Stalone posted fake videos generated by AI that show Gere shooting gerbils out his anus. Is this "Sentiment" and/or "opinion" and "protected speech"

You already answered the question.

Waitman Gobble wrote:

I think it's ok to be able to publish what you want as long as you are held responsible.

Why is it a new issue? We already have libel and slander laws to hold Stallone responsible. If it is deemed that these laws don't cover this form of damaging behavior, the proper approach is to improve those laws to cover this new technology, not invent sweeping new laws.