Just make a new rule that you can only post content on x that has first been posted on a properly moderated social media site.
Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
121–130 of 141 posts
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#122Interesting that Community Notes is mentioned, because it's by far the most reliable anti-"disinformation" mechanism I've seen. The "bluecheck" system has been absolutely wrecked, though. Even with the haphazard patching of grey and gold ticks, a bluecheck more often than not is the sign of self-promoted nonsense.
Did people actually rely on the bluechecks anyway in the first place? For me it was at best a slight help if I was trying to find a celebrity that had impersonators. I would be surprised if I’m a very typical user of course. But still I had the impression the bluecheck system was fondly replaced.
> For me it was at best a slight help if I was trying to find a celebrity that had impersonators.
That's exactly why it was useful. Major institutions and public figures have impersonators, some satirical and others intentionally misleading. The check made it easy to sift what actually came from someone and what was either lies or satire.
On that front it hasn't gotten too bad because the grey and gold checkmarks exist.
Now blue checkmarks are a sign to ignore the tweet because it's someone who's just paid to boost their signal. Of course this has rendered the thread of replies to a given tweet unusable since the top posts are all posts by people who have paid to be seen rather than posts with more likes or retweets (actual signals of value/popularity).
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
On what basis are the US limits to speech better than the European ones? The US is arguably a more violent society now - is that the better part? The GDP per capita being higher? The trade-off between the two?
On the fact that you're investigated because you hold certain beliefs or say something that the party currently holding power doesn't like. I don't think it is a more violent society. Maybe in the discourse, but not in actual crime. And yes, people are more polarized, but I think it is tied more to the economic context than anything else.
Have you looked at homicide figures, for example? Europe around 3 per 100k (EU below 2), US above 6.
The party thing was in the Eastern bloc, not sure where that is now the case.
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Europe 2.0" aka "the usa" has a better free speech implementation than "Europe 1.0". So yes different as in bad.
I'm not sure the US approach to free speech works that well in practice. Political polarization has become worse in the US than in most other developed countries, and that looks like a consequence of free speech. When you value free speech far above social harmony, you give a lot of power to extremists of all kinds.
How do you reconcile this against the fact that extreme anti-establishment parties are surging throughout Europe, including in places like Germany that have some of the most extreme restrictions on speech? For instance Germany is now even considering trying to ban the AfD [1] (political party) who are now polling at > 20%, which is quite high in a functional multi-party system - higher than Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats party. Incidentally 47% of the country supports banning them, 47% oppose it. There have also been numerous instances of violence against party members, and more. And there are similar divides in many other European countries.
The one thing I'm certain of is that we're all living through a major inflection point in history, for better or for worse.
[1] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/afd-party-ban-ge...
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The limits on free speech in European countries are also much older in parts. The history in Europe on that topic is just very different from the US, I'd say.
Indeed. People forget that e.g. Portugal, Greece, and Spain were dictatorships until the 70s, and that a lot of eastern EU was under Communism until 1990s. "The EU" is not equivalent to "France and Germany", despite what they think.
The speech culture of France and Germany is very different to the US as well, it's not just the dictatorships of the recent past.
Nazism as an ideology is illegal to promote in Germany. Use of Nazi symbols outside of an artistic or educational context is illegal in Germany and France (most European countries really). Several neo-nazi, neo-fascist, and communist parties have been banned since the founding of the modern German state. Far-right parties in Germany are always walking a fine line - if their membership flirts too much with nazism or fascism they are very much liable to be banned.
Several European countries with strong democratic traditions in the modern era remain very wary of extreme ideologies. Their proponents murdered millions and burned the continent to the ground less than a century ago. Most people are comfortable with the state killing these movements in their infancy.
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#126Disappointing that the vast majority of top levels here are describing the EU as some sort of totalitarian police state. It does respect rights. Do the people in the USA think that every country should let its citizens act like uneducated armed griefers?
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-violation-priv... trying to ban end to end encryption is the opposite of respecting rights.
[deleted]
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure the US approach to free speech works that well in practice. Political polarization has become worse in the US than in most other developed countries, and that looks like a consequence of free speech. When you value free speech far above social harmony, you give a lot of power to extremists of all kinds.
How do you reconcile this against the fact that extreme anti-establishment parties are surging throughout Europe, including in places like Germany that have some of the most extreme restrictions on speech? For instance Germany is now even considering trying to ban the AfD [1] (political party) who are now polling at > 20%, which is quite high in a functional multi-party system - higher than Olaf Scholz’s Social Democ…
European countries have a history of assimilating anti-establishment parties into the establishment. They did it with revolutionary communists, they did it with the green movement, and now they are doing it with the conservative nationalist / right-wing populist / whatever parties. The Finnish equivalent of the AfD is in a coalition government led by the traditional center-right party. In Sweden, the corresponding party supports the right-wing coalition. And in Italy, Brothers of Italy is the leading party in a coalition that turned out to be unexpectedly moderate.
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#128"among others, concerned the dissemination of illegal content in the context of Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel, the Commission has decided to open formal infringement proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act."
Why not open a case against Israel and some of the citizens for spreading a misinformation about beheaded babies and some other lies?
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#129"news" means something "new is happening", how do you know if it is a disinformation or right when it just came up?
Should we blindly trust and consume news from mass media propaganda machines like CNN, Fox news, BBC and etc?
Re: Commission opens formal proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you reconcile this against the fact that extreme anti-establishment parties are surging throughout Europe, including in places like Germany that have some of the most extreme restrictions on speech? For instance Germany is now even considering trying to ban the AfD [1] (political party) who are now polling at > 20%, which is quite high in a functional multi-party system - higher than Olaf Scholz’s Social Democ…
European countries have a history of assimilating anti-establishment parties into the establishment. They did it with revolutionary communists, they did it with the green movement, and now they are doing it with the conservative nationalist / right-wing populist / whatever parties. The Finnish equivalent of the AfD is in a coalition government led by the traditional center-right party. In Sweden, the corresponding pa…
I think here you're talking more about what eventually will happen, while your earlier comment (and the one I was responding to), is more about what is happening. The fact that the polarization may end up playing out better than in the US (though the situation in Germany as of yet gives no indications of that) is a different issue than the fact that there is an undeniably sharp rise in polarization, even in places with stringent speech controls.