cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853884
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256
To whom it may concern.
If someone told me “I don’t like Musk, I’m going to stop using Twitter”, I’d say “good for you”. I think it’s great when people stand up for their beliefs and put their money where their mouth is.
If someone told me “I don’t like Musk, so you’re not allowed to use Twitter”, I’d tell them to go fuck themselves. It’s none of their business whether they personally like what it is that I want to do as long as I’m not hurting anyone.
Why there are always petitions to ban something, not to create something, like eu based social network everyone can join and use for free ?
The German government already has their own mastodon instance on social.bund.de
Much better alternative to a EU funded social network, as this would automatically drive critics to the assumption, that politicians are controlling the narrative and deleting critical content. Also supports the development of open source and self hosted alternatives this way.
Found the market liberal.
You ban stuff not because it is bad and you want something better. You ban stuff that is so bad that is actually harmful.
I think they should just force him to disclose his shitty algorithm
Obviously not what they have in use anymore, but for a golden few seconds the algorithm was open source: https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm
I also don’t think banning anything is the way to go. Who don’t want to use X doesn’t have to - there is Reddit, Mastadon, BlueSky and others.
There’s absolutely no sensible reason to even consider doing this.
There’s absolutely no sensible reason to even consider not doing this.
How about “if you don’t like Musk, don’t use X or buy a Tesla?”
I personally don’t really like any billionaires at all, but I’m not going to get in to a hissy fit because someone uses Microsoft Windows or bought something from Amazon.
I’m not going to get in to a hissy fit because someone uses Microsoft Windows or bought something from Amazon
You’re more mature than some people here.
That’s all well and good, and that’s currently my policy.
But that’s an entirely different discussion than whether banning a certain propaganda platform is worth doing and would cause the intended results.
Why stop there, why not ban Elon all together?
Ew, that sounds bad. I would prefer “promote open twitter-like social media” instead of “ban X” (you can replace X with any other website/software, even FOSS one). No banning should be allowed in EU.
They should pass a resolution that all EU member nations shall create official Mastodon and Lemmy instances. Moderators and admins would be actual jobs constrained by the relevant national or EU law.
(Or replace Mastodon and Lemmy with whatever open platforms you deem appropriate)
I like this idea.
Twitter was supposed to be the “online town hall”. And online public spaces are not publicly owned, they’re run by private companies that can ban you at their own whims.
With each country having their own federated platforms, they can truly act as online public spaces where the usual laws apply as they would do offline.
You’d need to employ thousands of moderators though if everyone was online but honestly I think it’s worth it.
But don’t be handing out prison sentences for posting stupid shit. Online harassment and calls for violence can still be legally handled the same way they are offline, but jailing people for offensive jokes and stupid hot takes is just idiotic.
Best way is temporary bans increasing exponentially in length, then small percentage of income fines again increasing exponentially.
Also, and I’d argue we already need this, a court system for online crimes. This means the regular court system doesn’t get more workload added on to it and specialist judges and lawyers can be appointed.
I’m okay with this as long as things like general political or religious speech is protected. When you’re punised for speaking against the majority, congratulations you have left/center authoritarianism and it’s no better than fascism in my opinion.
Agreed. Perhaps the best implementation is a highly integrated mix of Mastodon and Lemmy where Mastodon is used for general discussion and news and Lemmy is used for organising communities around subjects like politics and religion.
Yeah, keep X on and pile up the multi-million fines if they don’t comply with laws. That’s the only thing companies care about - something eating up their profits.
And if they keep not complying - then ban it altogether, like Brazil did. I prefer to recognize and ban it for the illegal activities it does, not because some folks don’t like it and banded together against it.
They didn’t ban it already? DOn’t they have a filter list and they tell isps to block certain sites?
Ah, a change.org petition . I eagerly await the sweeping improvements to life abroad.
Has any petition here ever actually lead to any change?
Not going to sign it, too. Change.org is part of the problem, and not of the solution.
Just a casual bystander with no clue what’s going on… why’s change.org a problem?
Edit: ok, read more posts, understand now
I couldn’t find any posts talking about it, what’s wrong with it?
It’s like waving a disapproving finger at a brick wall, has always been my criticism.
Protests shouldn’t be so easily tossed in a bin. If you aren’t a problem, then no one has to listen to your message.
Petitions in Europe are required to be discussed when they reach a certain threshold. The platform does not matter.
I don’t like the idea of governments banning access to a website, unless its like CSAM.
It’s short sighted indeed.
fuck CSAM, but where do we draw the line?
let laws regulate society and don’t let government regulate directly.
for example, instead of banning access to X, outlaw the use of Social media in direct advertising. Make the EU market so hostile towards their business practices they can’t legally operate.
then, it’s “X” that refuses to operate within the laws we as a people have required, not just an over-reaching autocrat.
Yeah, I don’t think that banning social platforms is a good idea, unless its hosting illegal content. As bad as ““X”” is, banning it could be a slippery slope.
Although, I don’t think this change.org petition will get far.
That’s a bad idea because of how reliant small businesses are on social media advertising. A regulation like that would essentially screw over every business that isn’t rich enough to go to bigger advertising venues.
yes… because businesses are more important than democracies…
you know, not that long ago these coverless books existed that came out every day. they had stories, news, even comics in them. and you know what? they even had advertisements in them!
social media is a convenience to business. government is not a social convenience.
Businesses are the ones that produce food, medicine, clothes, build houses, print books, provide gas and electricity, build roads, etc. There are businesses that have outlasted monarchies and democracies. I’m not a corpo schmuck but small businesses are the soul of the soul of our society.
Business also managed just fine before social media advertising was a thing.
People
Businessesare the ones that produce food, medicine, clothes, build houses, print books, provide gas and electricity, build roads, etc. There are businesses that have outlasted their usefulnessmonarchies and democracies. I’mnota corpo schmuckbutand culture issmall businesses arethe soul of the soul of our society.there, I fixed it.
the purpose of any business is to be profitable, otherwise it’s a charity. businesses have zero philanthropic goals.
people make a business profitable. People make the products and services. People consume the product.
no people, no business.
no government, no people, no business.
don’t let greed cloud your judgement.
Yes a business usually consists of people and is driven by profit, you sted the obvious, but what is your point?
Do people buy their vacuums from Dyson Ltd. or from a guy named Kevin?
It’s not just about profits, it’s about accountability. That’s what the different forms of corporations represent. A singular private person can’t and shouldn’t be held accountable for every product the produce. A business is a layer of protection of limited (Ltd.) accountability. How could anybody be motivated to invent or produce anything if a single miss use of your product that causes any harm (intended or not) could lead to you directly being held responsible and possible going to jail. A business on the other hand usually has limited accountability but is also held to a much higher standard of quality and proof than a private individual ever could.
Twitter is not the sole, or even the biggest social media company in Europe. It’s not even in the top 3.
The advertisement sector will be fine.
That’s what I’m trying to say. Losing Twitter isn’t a big deal.
See it more like “preventing a website whose owner refuses to comply withEuropean law from operating in the EU”.
What do you mean by operating in the EU? Twitter is run from America
operate in != run from
If you want an apt example of a company ‘run from’ America not allowed to ‘operate in’ another jurisdiction:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Twitter_in_BrazilI still don’t understand how Twitter operates in other countries. It’s accessible because it’s a part of the world wide web. When people use Twitter are they not reaching out to the servers located in America?
They’re not accessible anymore from a jurisdiction if said jurisdiction which rules they are violating decides to change their networking policies. And because twitter likes to be accessible, twitter decided to comply with the rules eventually. You seem intentionally obtuse btw.
Some thoughts: (1) networks don’t necessarily run according to judicial borders.
(2) you also have to penalize the use of rerouting tools, which Brazil seems to have done.
(3) it became incorrect to refer to it as “world wide web”(1) Agreed of course, but I don’t see much of an issue there. You try to get a 100% coverage on your blockade, but 99% will move twitter to compliance too. same goes for (2). As for (3), I’m not really sure why you directed that at me.
Apparently, it works by fining users that visit the site. See chapter “Blocking”.
How nice, a government that puts criminal penalties on it’s citizens reading the (according to them) wrong things. Banning technologies like VPNs.
And it’s fine to continue to operate in the US.
But if it doesn’t abide by EU laws then it can’t operate in the EU.America doesn’t set the worlds laws
I understand each government can have its own regulation about what websites should be accessible. I still don’t understand how Twitter operates in the EU. It’s a part of the world wide web. My understanding of how the internet works is that users reach out to the server, which in twitters case is in the US
In practice, we could sever the connection between EU internet and the rest of the internet.
Maybe whitelist a set of ideas that are allowed to pass through the great eu firewall.
Or maybe, just maybe, fine companies that commit criminal acts.
There really is a fine line between turning into an authoritarian regime and doing basic police work, right?
European politicians use X and its an assets for their governments. I doubt they are going to do much about it.
Corporate nationalist social media like “X” (American oligarchy) and TikTok (Chinese oligarchy) are a danger to the sovereignty and stability of the Western world.
and the reddit Russian psy-op? certainly not helping
Op, if you want to submit a petition to the EU, you should use their portal https://www.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/en/home not change.org
Exactly. This is the only correct answer. Change.org petitions are as worthless as a 7 euros banknote.
Site doesn’t load. I trust they’re talking about banning it financially, not with a firewall, right?
