Thread by @jess_miers

What's egregious is that a California Representative is copying legislation from regions that consistently fail to preserve speech and expression.

Asm Wicks, we are not the EU. We are not the AU. Why are you enabling foreign control over California companies? #CJPA

https://twitter.com/BuffyWicks/status/1663998149332180992

Further, what is your end goal for Silicon Valley tech?

With the AADC, you're forcing tech companies to perform age verification on all of your constituents, further collecting sensitive identification info (largely in violation of other CA privacy laws).

You've created an environment where tech companies are discouraged from improving their products and services for kids and families.

And in fact, you're encouraging companies to block minor users entirely, disrupting their lives and frustrating their access to resources.

All while violating the First Amendment rights of your constituents which not only include the folks employed by the tech companies but also the users that have a right to receive the information you've forced tech to block.

Worse, when the companies finally decided to fight back, invoking their First Amendment rights, you teamed up with Gov. @GavinNewsom to *publicly threaten* those companies, demanding they dismiss their suit.

As a California voter and taxpayer, that behavior signals clearly to me that you couldn't care less about preserving our rights in this country.

Worse, you couldn't care less about preserving democracy.

Jawboning private entities when they invoke their rights is certainly not democracy in action. I

It's blatant authoritarianism.

Now let's turn to the CJPA.

Your stated goal is to support small and local journalists. Great. Journalism is important. Democracy dies in darkness.

So, if that's the case, how come only 70% of the fees collected from tech companies go to journalists? Why not 100%?

And how come 'eligible journalists' under this bill do not include news organizations and freelance journalists that make under $100k/year in revenue?

Aren't they precisely the ones you're aiming to protect?

And how come the deadline to join the arbitration coalition is February 2024? Won't it just be all the major / mass media companies that will set the fee % for the entire industry?

Market entrants after Feb 2024 are screwed then, right?

And why are you even bringing in AU / EU as your rationale for the legislation?

I respect your affinity for their regulatory schemes but you don't represent those regions. You represent California citizens and as a representative, you have a duty to uphold the US Constitution.

The UK, Spain, and all of Australia do not have a First Amendment like we do. Yet, the laws you continue to draft and push blatantly conflict with 1A.

How many more lawsuits does CA need to incur (and that CA taxpayers must pay for) until that finally sinks in?

Not to mention, Asm @BuffyWicks, you're a Democrat. So why are you drafting legislation that mirrors the regulations we're seeing in Texas, Florida, and Utah?

And why are you propping up the massive right wing media with a mandatory wealth transfer?

Lastly, it seems you're forgetting that social media companies are in fact news publishers themselves (s/o @ChrisMarchese9 for this brilliant point).

Why do you get to decide which publishers are legit and which are not?

And what's the next industry on your chopping block?

All of this is to say, innovation can't thrive under hostile regulatory regimes like the ones you seem to admire.

So, if the end game is to throttle U.S. tech innovation, let me personally congratulate you. You're well on your way to accomplishing that goal.

@threadreaderapp unroll