Jeff HodgesMar 28, 2024
This account has moved

It is 2024, and we're back once again on the "to counteract malign Russian influence, we must adopt speech-suppressing laws identical to those they have in Russia" bullshit. This time, the offending party is the California state legislature. Californians, call your state senators to oppose SB 1228:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1228

"This is like Russia!" isn't hyperbole, it's a literal fucking actual law they passed a whole-ass decade ago:
https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690410/putin-signs-law-forcing-bloggers-to-register-with-russian-media-office

Bill Text - SB-1228 Large online platforms: user identity authentication.

Mar 27, 2024 at 7:22pmWeb
Show threadThis account has movedMar 27, 2024

Here's the bill summary of SB 1228:

This bill would require a large online platform, as defined, to seek to verify the name, telephone number, and email address of an influential user, as defined, by a means chosen by the large online platform and would require the platform to seek to verify the identity of a highly influential user, as defined, by asking to review the highly influential user’s government-issued identification.
[1/2]

Show threadThis account has movedMar 27, 2024
This bill would require a large online platform to note on the profile page of an influential or highly influential user, in type at least as large and as visible as the user’s name, whether the user has been authenticated pursuant to those provisions ... and would require the platform to attach to any post of an influential or highly influential user a notation that would be understood by a reasonable person as indicating that the user is authenticated or unauthenticated, as prescribed.
[2/2]
Show threadThis account has movedMar 27, 2024

This is not Russia, it is California, and we should not be looking to Roskomnadzor for inspiration. Unfortunately for state Sen. Steve Padilla, who sponsored this bill, Californians have constitutional rights to anonymous speech. Limiting the right to anonymous speech online is intolerable in any event, but limiting it only to speech almost nobody listens to is particularly nonsensical.

Why are my elected representatives wasting time on this idiocy? Steve Padilla should be ashamed of himself.

Show threadThis account has movedMar 27, 2024
You can look up your California reps here: https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Show threadChance 'UmMar 27, 2024
@riana I don’t fully follow this. The law as you described it doesn’t limit anonymous speech but allows the consumers of speech additional information to assess the speech. Effectively, it may limit the speech if the flag effects the behavior of the companies or consumers but that’s a trade off that one can weigh against the downsides of deceptive speech.
Show threadThis account has movedMar 27, 2024
@tsrams It's not limited to deceptive speech, and it's a way of deterring people from speaking at all. I do not find those trade-offs acceptable, or constitutional. This bill is a violation of the First Amendment. You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but your opinion is bad.
Show threadThis account has movedMar 27, 2024
@tsrams The WHOLE POINT of requiring authentication of a user's identity is to "limit anonymous speech" and deter the speaker from speaking. That's why it's unconstitutional.
Show threadStargazerMar 28, 2024
@tsrams @riana It delays a post from appearing from a non authenticated user for 2 seconds ("visible for at least two seconds before the rest of the post is visible") and seems to apply to anyone who had a post go viral ("“Influential user” means a user [...]that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Content authored, created, or shared by the user has been seen by more than 25,000 users over the lifetime of the accounts that they control or administer on the platform.").
Show threadChance 'UmMar 29, 2024
@Stargazer8693 @riana Thanks for the additional detail; the two second delay is really problematic.
Show threadStargazerMar 28, 2024
@riana It also seems that it would slow down a platform and clutter up the UI when there's an unauthenticated person:
"For a post from an unauthenticated influential or highly influential user, the notation required by paragraph (1) shall be visible for at least two seconds before the rest of the post is visible and then shall remain visible with the post."