21–30 of 97 posts
They changed the blue check from an exclusive club of the rich and popular, to just Ive got a paying account. How is that misleading? Why does the EU have a say about design choices?
The blue check symbolised (symbolises) being verified, i.e. this account belongs to who it says it does. But it doesn't carry out any/sufficient checks to actually verify that. See also: https://x.com/jesus/status/1590405986925543424
Why can a company be fined for not allowing "researchers" access to data? That seems bizarre to me.
What's bizarre about it? There's lots of legislation that requires companies to report on various data or to provide access to auditors. It's legally valid. I think there's a compelling case to be made for requiring large social media platforms to provide data access to researchers, considering the platform's incredible ability to influence elections and society at-large.
Why can a company be fined for not allowing "researchers" access to data? That seems bizarre to me.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the Cambridge Analytica scandal started off with data that was supposed to be used for research projects at the University of Cambridge being exfiltrated for commercial political use [0]. That said, this is most likely a tit-for-tat by the EU against the Trump administration, because we live in a world where all countries (even the US) have now weaponized regulations for neg…
I think Twitter is already providing access to this data through paid APIs too, so this is effectively subsidizing researcher access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the Cambridge Analytica scandal started off with data that was supposed to be used for research projects at the University of Cambridge being exfiltrated for commercial political use [0]. That said, this is most likely a tit-for-tat by the EU against the Trump administration, because we live in a world where all countries (even the US) have now weaponized regulations for neg…
They could implement a similar system to what Facebook currently provides when doing research with platform data. I think they only allow access to carefully controlled data through a remote sandboxed environment. I think Twitter is already providing access to this data through paid APIs too, so this is effectively subsidizing researcher access.
Unlike other major tech companies like Meta or Alphabet that fall under the DSA, X doesn't have a similar presence in the EU to give it a firewall. Alphabet has Poland on it's side [0], Meta has Ireland on it's side [1], Amazon has Luxembourg on it's side [2], and Microsoft has Czechia on it's side [7][8][9], and because of Musk's ties to the GOP, it becomes a useful political lever while not directly hurting individual EU states. If X somehow complies, some other issue will crop up against (eg.) Tesla despite the Gigafactory because Brandenburg is a lost cause if you aren't affilated with the AfD or BSW. It's the same reason why X doesn't push back when India passes a diktat because Indian law holds corporate leaders criminally liable and X has a significant India presence [10]
It's the same way how if you want to hold Germany by the balls you pressure Volkswagen [3] and if you want to pressure France [4] you target LVMH's cognac, scotch, and wine business [5].
This is a major reason why companies try to build GCCs abroad as well - being in the same room gives some leverage when negotiating regulations. Hence why Czechia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Greece pushed back against French attempts at cloud sovereignty [6] because OVHCloud only has a presence in France and Poland, but Amazon and Microsoft have large capital presences in the other 4.
[0] - https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/google-invests-billions...
[1] - https://www.euractiv.com/news/irish-privacy-regulator-picks-...
[2] - https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/policy/amazon-leaders-meet-l...
[3] - https://www.ft.com/content/6ec91d4a-2f37-4a01-9132-6c7ae5b06...
[4] - https://videos.senat.fr/video.5409997_682ddabf64695.aides-au...
[5] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-03/eu-fight-...
[6] - https://www.euractiv.com/news/eu-digital-ministers-push-agai...
[7] - https://nukib.gov.cz/en/infoservis-en/news/2276-nukib-and-mi...
[8] - https://news.microsoft.com/europe/2017/03/31/satya-nadella-v...
[9] - https://mpo.gov.cz/en/guidepost/for-the-media/press-releases...
[10] - https://www.glassdoor.com/Location/X-Bengaluru-Location-EI_I...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blue check symbolised (symbolises) being verified, i.e. this account belongs to who it says it does. But it doesn't carry out any/sufficient checks to actually verify that. See also: https://x.com/jesus/status/1590405986925543424
Twitter created that definition and now the EU has the divine right to not let them change it? Verified can and does mean many things.
USanians have been raised to believe that corporations are somehow above the law but that’s not true. Play stupid games, earn stupid fines a.k.a fuck with people and people will fuck back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blue check symbolised (symbolises) being verified, i.e. this account belongs to who it says it does. But it doesn't carry out any/sufficient checks to actually verify that. See also: https://x.com/jesus/status/1590405986925543424
Twitter created that definition and now the EU has the divine right to not let them change it? Verified can and does mean many things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe does tax its people a lot more. So the argument doesn't make sense.
Taxes which are used wisely for the people’s benefit is not a wasteful thing. That was the point original commentator made. Your reasoning is that taxation is always bad and the more you pay the worst, a very American view which I can understand given how badly US government spends money in this regard.
Why can a company be fined for not allowing "researchers" access to data? That seems bizarre to me.
What's bizarre about it? There's lots of legislation that requires companies to report on various data or to provide access to auditors. It's legally valid. I think there's a compelling case to be made for requiring large social media platforms to provide data access to researchers, considering the platform's incredible ability to influence elections and society at-large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's bizarre about it? There's lots of legislation that requires companies to report on various data or to provide access to auditors. It's legally valid. I think there's a compelling case to be made for requiring large social media platforms to provide data access to researchers, considering the platform's incredible ability to influence elections and society at-large.
It's stupid to force companies to accommodate researchers. If researchers want data then they can negotiate a paid license for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could implement a similar system to what Facebook currently provides when doing research with platform data. I think they only allow access to carefully controlled data through a remote sandboxed environment. I think Twitter is already providing access to this data through paid APIs too, so this is effectively subsidizing researcher access.
Probably, but as I mentioned before, the EU has been using the DSA as a negotiating tool against the US - just like we are using Free Speech absolutism and "censorship" as a tool against the EU in negotiations. Unlike other major tech companies like Meta or Alphabet that fall under the DSA, X doesn't have a similar presence in the EU to give it a firewall. Alphabet has Poland on it's side [0], Meta has Ireland on it'…
To call it a "negotiation tool" is like calling literally any import tax or tariff - of which hundreds of thousands existed and were entirely accepted as squarely in the Overton Window long before Trump took office - purely a "negotiation tool". Just because it's new doesn't make it one any more so than such import taxes which have been around for ages.