Ars Technica Article Rating

X sues Calif. to avoid revealing how it makes "controversial" content decisions

  • Bias Rating

    -34% Medium Liberal

  • Reliability

    45% ReliableFair

  • Policy Leaning

    -46% Medium Liberal

  • Politician Portrayal

    6% Negative

Bias Score Analysis

The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.

Sentiments

Overall Sentiment

N/A

  •   Liberal
  •   Conservative
SentenceSentimentBias
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan.

Bias Meter

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderately
Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Center

Somewhat Conservative

Moderately
Conservative

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

-100%
Liberal

100%
Conservative

Bias Meter

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

58% : Under the law, social media platforms must also provide information and statistics on any content moderation actions taken in those categories.
50% : "The law stipulated that all platforms were required to start collecting data for their first terms of service report covering content moderation during the third quarter of 2023 and submit those reports to Bonta by January 1, 2024.Platforms could be found violating the law for failing to post terms of service about content moderation, missing a deadline to submit a terms of service report, or materially omitting or misrepresenting information about content moderation.
47% : "States cannot avoid this prohibition by rebranding censorship as 'transparency' requirements."
45% : In its complaint, X Corp. argued that AB 587 violates the First Amendment by compelling "companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will" and "impermissibly" interfering "with the constitutionally protected editorial judgments of companies." X Corp. said that if the court did not block the law, California could pressure companies "to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful.""The State of California touts AB 587 as a mere 'transparency measure' under which certain social media companies must make their content moderation policies and statistics publicly available," X's complaint said.
45% : In a statement about X Corp.'s lawsuit, Netchoice said that the law would force companies to submit "intrusive" and "often impossible to comply with" disclosures "about constitutionally protected editorial decisions."
44% : "The author of AB 587, California assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, released a statement saying that the law "is a pure transparency measure that simply requires companies to be upfront about if and how they are moderating content.
40% : In its complaint, filed a US district court in California, X Corp. is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction stopping California Attorney General Robert Bonta from enforcing the law.
35% : Any platform violating the law risks fines -- which X described as "draconian financial penalties" -- up to $15,000 per violation per day.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.

Copy link