X Corp. by Elon Musk is suing the state of California over AB 587, a bill that requires social media platforms to report biannually to the attorney general on how they approach the moderation of certain categories of speech. The complaint alleges that the bill violates federal and state free speech laws because it “allows companies like forced to speak their minds against their will,” as they are forced to settle for definitions for “politically charged” issues such as hate speech. or racism.
X Corp.’s complaint explains that hate speech, misinformation, political interference, and other content categories are “difficult to reliably define.” It adds that defining them is “often fraught with political bias” because there is no accepted consensus within the public sphere about what the terms mean. X Corp. says that in defining these matters it is forced to take a position on them.
The lawsuit claims that AB 587 is intended to let social media companies “eliminate” certain constitutionally protected content that the state deems “problematic.” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office promoted it as a “leading measure for social media transparency” when he signed it into law last September. Laws specifying how social media companies handle moderation have been created in both Texas and Florida, and those laws are waiting for the Supreme Court to hear the challenges.
Social media moderation is not a solved problem. X uses tools such as automated systems and community flagging for moderation and fact checking. This week, the company introduced its Community Notes for videos, which allows “Top Writers” to provide context to potentially misleading videos, but which in itself can lead to misinformation. Reddit has recently come under criticism after it started booting old moderators and replacing them with potentially less critical, inexperienced moderators, while Bluesky’s own moderation manifesto acknowledged that its moderation approach could stifle fact-checking on the site.