Live data from Hacker News

"If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

twitter.com

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#51
Related:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46374248 ("Former EU commissioner and activists barred from US (theguardian.com)"; 16 days ago, 39 comments)

("Rogers called [Thierry] Breton – who served as the European Commissioner for the internal market from 2019-2024 – “a mastermind” of the [Digital Services Act]")

That was, like this, a direct conflict between Elon Musk and EU regulators over illegal content, which resulted in Musk effecting US foreign policy, and sanctioning a top EU official.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#52
post #15

Maybe Britain will introduce a ban unless X sells 80% of its UK operations to UK investors. nudge nudge wink wink

That would unironically be a good way of dealing with this. However it would probably be seen as just as hostile. I'm very against banning websites, however social media as a whole is doing detrimental harm to children and adults alike so I would not shed a tear as long as we also ban meta/tiktok/YouTube shorts.

[dead]

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#53
post #37

Don't reward this type of post with your attention. This is messaging from 1 (of 453) Congressional reps to the president and voters. It is not realistic policy.

> "It is not realistic policy."

Literally already happened, two weeks ago (Thierry Breton / Digital Services Act).

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#54
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a was a teenager, not so long ago really, everyone wanted to move the US and saw them as a global cultural power. The only people who truly disliked them were a minority anti capitalists, most people had positive views about Americans. Now wherever I look at, from far left to far right, virtually no one fully support the BS they're currently pushing, even the usual bootlicking lapdogs are staying silent. In rece…

> In recent German polls about which countries are considered partners the US is barely ahead of Russia. Interesting. I thought AfD is ahead in the polls and very pro-Russian, how do I reconcile these observations?

AfD gets 30% of votes, the turnout isn't even 80% so even if we consider 100% of them are brain dead putin balls garglers, which isn't even remotely true, that's 14m people out of ~60m people legally allowed to vote.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#55
yet they won’t do anything on 1A grounds when “x” censors or shadow bans Americans without anything resembling good cause

other than maybe you looked at some eceleb cancer funny and got mass reported

or “voted for the wrong person.” The definition of which apparently changes on the whims of advertisers, empaneled government boards behind closed doors, or whoever buys the company—

(who, themselves might have the freedom to switch and vocally support different parties from one election to the next. But not you.)

curious.

I wish Luna and her colleagues would be as ardent about defending the 1A rights of Americans using these platforms in America, as she is about… anyone, anywhere in the world except for Americans.

So they can draft and or pass a bill cracking down on and sanctioning a whole entire government for suppressing speech of non Americans.

Twice! For Brazil and UK!

But they won’t draft or pass a bill that touches Meta or X or their ilk for suppressing legal, respectfully posited, non-obscene , non-violent speech of Americans. Speech where the only issue is that it displeases Toyota or Apple or Debbie Schultz or Allison Fauci … or whomever.

They’re not protecting UK citizens or anyone. They’re protecting the platforms and their income streams. That’s why they won’t ever do that.

I’m trying to be nice here but the nicest word I have for the United States Congress rn is “useless.”

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#56
post #50
post #8

Bizarre that the US legislature is going to bat for the right of a corporation to sell illegal content in a foreign country. The UK should call their bluff on this one, appeasement isn't going to work forever.

It's what corporate capture looks like. She's either peacocking for corporate donors or trying to court musks/MAGA's favor. Also, there's a difference between 1 rep effectively shitposting on social media and the US government actually doing something. Regardless I agree, it's not a good look

Luna is hardcore MAGA so she's definitely throwing out red meat.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#57
post #2

If Starmer is successful in banning @X in Britain, I will move forward with legislation that is currently being drafted to sanction not only Starmer, but Britain as a whole. Official account for FL-13 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna | Serving on @GOPOversight & @HouseForeignGOP | Wife-Mom-USAF Veteran

> legislation that is currently being drafted to sanction not only Starmer

What legislation? The US needed none in previous cases e.g. https://europeannewsroom.com/us-bans-visa-for-breton-he-cens...

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#58
post #39
post #22

I find it bizarre that x isn't already blocked in Britain given that it's full of porn, and seemingly doesn't do any of the required proof of age checks required by every other porn website under current UK legislation.

Funny enough, based on my observation, X (formerly know as Twitter) is more likely to ban/shadowban normal users who has weak engagements than algorithm-optimized bots. A lot of bots are posting pornographic content or selling illegal items on that platform. And since many of the bots are "verified", it is harder to filter them out completely. The whole thing is a mess at this point.

How does verified hamper filtering?

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#59
post #22

I find it bizarre that x isn't already blocked in Britain given that it's full of porn, and seemingly doesn't do any of the required proof of age checks required by every other porn website under current UK legislation.

X has implemented age checks and content filtering in the UK (or so I was told by a friend)

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#60
post #8

Bizarre that the US legislature is going to bat for the right of a corporation to sell illegal content in a foreign country. The UK should call their bluff on this one, appeasement isn't going to work forever.

It's more bizarre that Apple and Google are allowing X/Grok apps that generate non-consensual AI images in their App stores.
Post reply on HN