did california just ban political memes?

it's not what AB 2655 says, it's who gets to apply it.

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.

to begin:

the meat of this bill is that it requires online platforms to “block the posting of materially deceptive content related to elections in California, during specified periods before and after an election.” and/or mark it as inauthentic

The bill would exempt from its provisions a broadcasting station and a regularly published online newspaper, magazine, or other periodical of general circulation that satisfy specified requirements. The bill would also exempt content that is satire or parody.

so, mass media, broadcasters, and other such folk get a pass. this is just for social media. the establishment gets to speak and not be fact checked. the populace, not so much. not an auspicious commencement to this project to “save democracy” is it?

more like to save speech oligopoly.

“but señor cat, satire and parody are to be excluded,” you might say.

indeed, the bill says so. but i have a question for you:

who gets to decide what is and is not satire or parody?

let’s take an example:

this video is being reported as being one of the poster children for this bill. give it a watch. ask yourself: is it parody and/or satire?

because groovy gavin and the pelosi posse are saying it’s not.

now, personally, i’d say it obviously is. this is not some cunning deepfake changing her words about policy or past to subtly mislead, it’s lavish lampoon with a sharp political edge. if you cannot tell this is not her real speech, probably you should not be allowed to vote (or frankly to handle anything more dangerous than a ham sandwich with the crust cut off).

obviously, others might take a different view.

OK. fine, that’s the world for you. but which of us gets to decide?

because here’s what’s going to happen:

The bill would require a large online platform to develop procedures for California residents to report content that has not been blocked or labeled in compliance with the act. The bill would also authorize candidates for elected office, elected officials, elections officials, the Attorney General, and a district attorney or city attorney to seek injunctive relief against a large online platform for noncompliance with the act, as specified, and would assign precedence to such actions when they are filed in court.

a bunch of internet goons and thin skinned politicos are going to bomb the hotline with 100 zillion reports of everyhting they do not like. and it’s all going to land on the desk of some unelected misinformation minister put in place by the california legislature or by his gavintastic majesty himself. given that the former is a scootch left of nicolas maduro and the latter is as nasty a fascist piece of work as has ever tarnished the golden state, it’s not hard to guess how THAT is gonna go.

it’ll be full “scary poppins as red queen.”

they already have the whole team together at the stanford university center for censorship studies ready and rearing to go. just like last time. they don’t even have to get the band back together, just put it on stage again.

i fear a classic setup of “ABC debate” akin to “for my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law” as the fact checks will be all one sided and a seemingly even handed bill will simply come down to prosecutorial and administrative fiat. a select few unaccountable and unseen individuals will have full force of law to demand the taking down of anything they deem “misleading.”

the question is how far does this power reach?

this looks to be where the rubber will meet the road.

ostensibly, this is just about “labeling” though just how, in practice, this interacts with “blocking” seems an issue that remains to be seen.

they speak of “labels” and “exemptions for parody” but the meat of the law seemingly stipulates removal:

labeling is just for special cases and outside of election windows.

(and consider also how labeling might be used to great effect by branding all sorts of true or debatable speech by one’s foes false while failing to demarcate one’s own lies and thus making them seem true simply by virtue of lacking labeling.)

so this sure looks to me like a bill aimed at bringing back the state veto on public speech by the public.

this is a massive de facto 1st amendment violation by team “thumb on the scale” who would seem to be banking on this not being able to be challenged rapidly enough to matter this election but they may be able to squeak it by de jure because they have been a bit clever.

(d) “Deepfake” means audio or visual media that is digitally created or modified such that it would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of the individual depicted in the media.

this is the same standard from hustler vs fallwell (1988) around “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events.”

it’s quite a neat skirting of law and intent to apply a “what a reasonable person would know” standard and then set unreasonable and partisan people to render such subjective determinations.

it’s a truth ministry, pure and simple.

the whole of this informational edifice is reaching into AI on this. midjourney, the engine i use to render many images for BC used to let me create this:

now it refuses to draw “gavin newsom as the joker” because it could be disparaging of public figures.

they have been slanting the hell of other AI as well:

it’s pretty clear where they are trying to take this. it’s all of a piece and the goal is always to put the choice somewhere you cannot see it or hold it accountable then slam the scales out of balance.

now they still may run afoul here as it’s forcing speech suppression rather than generating liability around libel, but can anything occur ahead of the election in this short timeframe? likely not. this is the re-imposition of the twitter files censorship systems.

i suspect there is question of jurisdiction and reach as well. “can california make these demands and have them applied nation wide?” it seems likely they cannot.

were i the muskrat, i’d tell california to pound sand and dig in to oppose this and get it stayed. it’s fortuitous that twitter just left SF for texas.

if i could not get this stayed in CA, then i’d apply it, but ONLY to californa and let the rest of the country see what they like. make them second class social media citizens (or force them onto VPNs). then get very loud about how california has become a state sanctioned informational backwater.

this law has no good intent and even if it did, it’s obviously set up to move the debate from “are we allowed to censor social media and force platforms to comply with our strained and slanted ideas of informational hygiene?” and onto “what do we get to censor and who gets to do it?” and then place that decision in the hands of party picked partisans placed out of public view for purposes predictable.

so, i find little to be optimistic about here save one thing: this bill is a horror of cunning slant and manipulation masquerading as preventing lies.

the whole thing is one nasty slight of hand to pass off the cut of totalitarian trousers as reasonableness pants.

but like many such things, the sword is two edged, the fix is obviously in here, the streisand effect is alive and well, and parody is potent dissent.

it’d be a shame if everyone just kept pushing the boundaries here on “obvious satire.”

i mean, honestly, it can be tough to tell…