How is anyone meant to be able to confirm or deny posts on a suprise war that is going on in real time? Surely this would mean that Facebook and X would have to have better intelligence than the actual military intelligence agencies? Even the letter accusing them of posting says they have "indications" not "we have evidence". I'm no Zuckerberg or Musk fan but I just don't see how it's humanly possible to meet these r…
Safe harbor must be protected. If you start policing users it’s a super slippery slope.
Sorry if this is a silly question: The article states that if the companies fail to comply then they can be issued with fines worth 6% of the company’s annual revenue. What would happen in the even where one of the companies just said "Nope. We're not paying it."? In that case I assume the offending company would be dragged into lengthy and expensive legal battles against the EU. But is it likely that the EU could or…
Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?
There is a censorship in USA as well. No country has truly freedom of speech.
Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?
Your concerns about the potential pitfalls of establishing a censorship regime are 100% warranted. However the paradox of tolerance, as described by Karl Popper, is quite relevant here. Popper posited that for a society to remain tolerant, it must have the right to be intolerant of intolerance. This seems contradictory, but the essence is that unchecked tolerance can eventually be exploited by the intolerant, jeopardising the very foundation of a tolerant society. Popper emphasised that the intolerance which shouldn't be tolerated is that which refuses to engage in "rational argument". It's crucial to strike a balance to ensure the preservation of free speech while preventing its misuse.
Mindlessness. There is a reason spectrum is regulated. Broadcast being free for all, has Never made any sense. Social media is an abnormality.
I agree, only people approved by a central committee should get a chance to speak their mind. This is the only way to build a healthy society like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
Sorry if this is a silly question: The article states that if the companies fail to comply then they can be issued with fines worth 6% of the company’s annual revenue. What would happen in the even where one of the companies just said "Nope. We're not paying it."? In that case I assume the offending company would be dragged into lengthy and expensive legal battles against the EU. But is it likely that the EU could or…
You can make it illegal to do business with FB in EU (sanction it basically). You can seize whatever assets (buildings) or bank accounts they might have here.
Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?
I'm not sure this "freedom of speech" absolutism is such a good idea. A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane. I support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.
You say "society", but in practice its a group of unelected bureaucrats engaging in political censorship and regulatory capture.
Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?
What I theorized 10 years ago - balkanization of the internet - a GFW for each country/jurisdiction, and large entities like FAAMG forced to either play ball (and allow country censors), split up their operations, or leave markets.