redisdead@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 2024 17:29
collapse
The legal reason being ‘we can’t be arsed to protect your data/are willing to sell it to the highest bidder’
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 06 Sep 2024 04:54
nextcollapse
the sooner elon ceases to exist the better
Iceblade02@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 2024 20:13
collapse
The court’s order for an injunction applies only to the sections relating to defining and reporting data on content violation categories. Social media companies will still be under the remainder of AB 587’s requirements, which include semi-annually creating publicly viewable reports to California on the current terms of service, how automated systems enforce the terms of service, how companies respond to user-reported violations, and what actions the companies take against violators.
Seems like the higher courts ruling is sensible overall.
threaded - newest
Aricle unavailable for legal reasons in the EU.
Ironic.
http://archive.today/2024.09.05-163939/https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_21e5a632-6b0f-11ef-990d-3314413b4c42.html
The legal reason being ‘we can’t be arsed to protect your data/are willing to sell it to the highest bidder’
the sooner elon ceases to exist the better
Seems like the higher courts ruling is sensible overall.