Elon Musk’s social media platform, ArticleX, has initiated a lawsuit against the state of California, aiming to prevent the implementation of a new regulation mandating the tagging or removal of misleading election content on prominent internet platforms. Falling under the spotlight are videos, images, and audio content manipulated or generated via artificial intelligence, coined as ‘deepfakes.’ These sophisticated, misleading pieces can create the illusion of individuals saying or doing things they haven’t. The legislation, Assembly Bill 2655, is looking to be enforced beginning the new year.
Assembly Bill 2655 is merely one of three laws ratified by California Governor Gavin Newsom as precautionary measures against the rising issue of deepfakes prior to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. In an attempt to curtail potential risks of technology, California legislators are finding themselves at odds with influential technology moguls, who view the efforts as a probable constraint on online free speech.
The interest in deepfakes pertaining to elections surfaced after a public online rally between Governor Newsom and Musk. Musk had shared a viral video of Vice President Kamala Harris. The video, allegedly manipulated with AI, distorted Harris’ statements from one of her promotional ads. Donald Trump, a consistent Musk supporter, also participated in the spread of deepfakes by sharing counterfeit images implicating endorsement by pop icon Taylor Swift during his successful campaign to win back the presidency.
In its lawsuit, ArticleX argues that the new regulation could cause social media sites to act overcautiously, tagging or removing genuine election content. The suit suggests that this system could ultimately lead to the suppression of considerable sections of valuable political discourse and interpretation.
ArticleX’s legal grounds stand on the claim that the law infringes on the free speech safeguards provided by the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the suit raises the issue of a federal law, namely Section 230, which grants immunity to internet platforms from liability concerning user-generated content.
Having relocated its HQ from San Francisco to Texas during this year, ArticleX is filing the suit against California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, and Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, with the intent to stop the law. A spokesperson for Bonta conveyed the California Department of Justice’s intention to staunchly defend AB 2655 in court.
The office of the Secretary of State has refrained from commenting on any ongoing litigation. Simultaneously, efforts for a response from X were fruitless.
Assemblymember Marc Berman, who introduced AB 2655, expressed the lack of surprise at the response from X, admitting the hopes of constructive engagement during the legislative process had been futile. He deferred to the DOJ regarding any related litigation.
Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, or AB 2655 as it is known, has explicit exemptions for parody and satire content, as pointed out by Newsom’s office. While they voiced their confidence about the state’s legal standing, critics still question the effectiveness and implications of the law.
However, ArticleX raised concerns over distinguishing between earnest and satirical user posts, highlighting the differing opinions on the AI-edited video featuring Harris. The platform holds that the ambiguity of user intent would make the task challenging for social media companies.
The run-up to the elections saw a surge in AI-driven misinformation on social media platforms. The newly passed laws were designed to complement existing legislation that prohibits spreading misleading audio or visual media intended to damage a candidate’s image or deceiving a voter, especially within the critical period of several weeks leading up to an election.
In October, one of these newly passed laws, Assembly Bill 2839, was halted by a federal judge. This law aimed to ban the broadcast of misleading campaign advertisements or ‘election communication’ within the 120-day stretch before an election while a legal challenge to the law is underway.
This development presents a dichotomy between the need to maintain the integrity of the electoral process and the right to free speech, manifest through the challenge to AB 2839. It also emphasises the ongoing tension between the government’s attempts to regulate digital platforms and these platforms’ resistance to such measures.
Despite repeated attempts to regulate harmful tactics falling under the umbrella of ‘fake news,’ the practicality and potential for unfair application of these laws remain heavily debated subjects. Critics argue that these mandates may inadvertently suffocate genuine political exchange and hinder the democratic process.
Elon Musk’s ArticleX stands as a prominent figure in this battle, voicing concerns of millions of users who worry about their ability to freely express political ideas, possibly signifying a change in the way such matters are addressed in the legal system.
While the fate of ArticleX’s lawsuit and its implications on free speech and internet regulations are yet undetermined, one thing is clear: the debate around ‘deepfakes,’ misinformation, and the future of our digital democracy is far from over.