The EU's fine against X is not about speech or ‘censorship’

https://www.techpolicy.press/the-eus-fine-against-x-is-not-about-speech-or-censorship/

by saubeidl • 7 months ago

52 90 7 months ago

techpolicy.press

TZubiri• 7 months ago

[flagged]

nailer7• 7 months ago

Verification has never meant you’re a good person on any platform

ceejayoz4• 7 months ago

Isn’t the problem that they verified “the real Elon Musk”?

submeta6• 7 months ago

The EU is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-Russian or anti-Israeli. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. This suggests a growing conviction within the EU that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?

realusername3• 7 months ago

Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel.

Yeah sure """journalists""", the list of individuals under sanction in the EU is small and usually there's a good reason they are in that list.

submeta6• 7 months ago

The size of the list is irrelevant. What matters is the precedent. Restricting banking or travel based on political assessments, without criminal conviction or transparent judicial review, is a serious breach of the rule of law. Simply asserting “good reasons” is not an argument.

AlphaGeekZulu3• 7 months ago

The XX is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-XX or anti-XX. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Some of them are called "stupid" or "pigs". This suggests a growing conviction within the XX that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?

Try to find matches for the XX placeholders!

submeta6• 7 months ago

And what exactly did you add to the discussion, beyond posturing

ecshafer2• 7 months ago

This is a perfect place for a prolog program.

whynotmaybe4• 7 months ago

It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited.

For example, in many countries it's illegal to say that WWII concentration camps didn't exist.

In Belgium, a media can't make a publication that mocks the King.

mikkupikku4• 7 months ago

If Congress had a spine they would make it illegal for American corporations to collaborate with foreign countries in restricting any speech which would be legal in America. And if the EU had a spine, the would blanket ban all American social media. We're in this situation now because both sides are pussyfooting around the source of conflict, fundamentally incompatible values, never seeking resolution because it's easier to just continue with the status quo and ignore the resulting tensions. No respect for either side.

dangus6• 7 months ago

Next time you make an argument like this you might want to try to make one that isn’t easily debunked by a quick google search:

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jai...

Belgians are allowed to criticize the monarchy and the only protections the king has are the same defamation protections that every citizen has.

As far as being disallowed from denying the holocaust, there are very obvious good reasons for that law in Germany. I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing without looking pro-fascist.

Remember the tolerance paradox. Tolerating intolerance is not something that promotes personal liberty and freedom.

throw310822• 7 months ago

Confirmed. I find article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights particularly enlightening:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. [...]

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

To me it reads as "you have the right to free speech without interference by public authorities, except in all cases where public authorities want to interfere in whatever form and for whatever reason".

m4ck_• 7 months ago

Seems reasonable considering that Russia has absolutely no respect for European borders or laws. Why should they allow Russian assets to further damage Europe? They are literally waging war against Europe, and it's not just limited to Ukraine.

Russia has staged assassinations on European soil using radioactive and chemical weapons. They've sabotaged civilian and military infrastructure (both digitally and physically), plotted to bomb civilian cargo flights, etc. How much farther should Russia and it's agents be allowed to go before they're considered security risks?

touwer5• 7 months ago

It's not perfect, but by all means it's better than the so called free speech of the US-Maga cult

dangus6• 7 months ago

Why don’t you go ahead and finish your argument?

The EU is hypocritical, and the restrictions on freedom you see in Russia are actually way less extreme versions of the exact same laws in the books in Europe. Europe did it first and Russia is way more reasonable about it.

I swear you’re not even very far from repeating a Steve Rosenberg Vladimir Putin exchange verbatim.

It would be kind of hilarious how gullible the tech libertarian bro demographic is to Russian propaganda if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous.

submeta6• 7 months ago

So instead of exchanging arguments, you prefer to put people on sanctions lists, because they are on the wrong side from your standpoint? Is this the Europe you want to live in?

saubeidl7• 7 months ago

tl;dr

The three reasons for the fine are:

* Lack of transparency / misleading verified checkmarks

* Lack of open data access

* Lack of any ad transparency showing who paid to show which ads

None of those are censorship. All of those are basic good governance and transparency.

The censorship angle is nothing but FUD by an admin terrified of good governance and transparency.

mikkupikku4• 7 months ago

Two of those, "transparency" and "open data access" are demands from those who would subsequently use that information and access to inform and enforce censorship.

saubeidl7• 7 months ago

That sounds like quite the claim, do you have any evidence to support it?

Personally, I'd like to know who is trying to steer the conversation, in light of psyop campaigns and hybrid warfare against our democracy.

I'd also like researchers to be able to examine how a large public forum is run.

Again, transparency is the name of the game.

touwer5• 7 months ago

Based on what information?

energy123• 7 months ago

Regulate the algorithm. Make it boring.

nailer7• 7 months ago

The algorithm is open source and on GitHub. It is pretty boring.

CamelCaseName2• 7 months ago

That's a very outdated algorithm, which is why X was willing to open source it.

baobun• 7 months ago

No it is not open source and on GitHub. I think it is fair to call that repo fake. It is not even runnable code.

touwer5• 7 months ago

And you believe that?

nailer7• 7 months ago

Of course it is.

Prior checkmarks were for anyone who could pay 15K USD. X simply made it cheaper.

There is also a bizarre fine against Elon personally.

The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech.

Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves.

nutjob26• 7 months ago

EU laws are made by elected representatives.

You make unsupported claims of censorship, but how exactly is a fine against misleading blue dot censorship since it contains no speech? The company could change how they describe the blue dot or attach disclaimers but they don't.

Why? Because the EU's actions serve Musk's and the Administrations political goals of vilifying anyone who has a different view, especially the EU, and using the levers of the state to retaliate and threaten.

The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech.

If it wasn't for ASML there would be no tech industry. The world depends on a single EU company for advanced chips and for its continued prosperity.

Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves.

You're just another EU hater pushing mindless tropes. Why are you so full of hate?

fidotron10• 7 months ago

EU laws are made by elected representatives.

No, they are voted on by elected representatives.

They must be proposed by the commission, which is not elected but appointed.

touwer5• 7 months ago

Sure. Don't inform yourself. Live in your own little biased world. It's cozy, isn't it. But not real

fidotron10• 7 months ago

It's true, all those people that disagree with what you have been told are Russian bots.

You can sleep soundly again.

tzs• 7 months ago

Prior checkmarks were for anyone who could pay 15K USD

Citation needed. Everything I've been able to find says that they were free.

CamelCaseName2• 7 months ago

How many people get scammed every day on X because the verification badge is a "Spend $1-5" badge?

This was especially plain to see in the crypto side of twitter.

Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

The average internet user is closer to your grandmother than you or me, and that is who these laws are meant to protect.

gruez• 7 months ago

Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

So what's the right level of "responsibility"? Is letsencrypt issuing certificates to websites (which shows a lock icon in browsers) also fooling grandma into sending over her credit card details? What about EV certificates from a few years ago, where you paid ~$300/yr for a green lock? Should the EU get in the business of regulating what levels of verification are required to show lock/checkmark icons?

gjsman-1000• 7 months ago

To continue this train of thought, what happens when the EU decides that unverified users must be hidden by default and can only be accessed by direct lookup?

fidotron10• 7 months ago

It will end like Germany where to put anything on the Internet your physical address must be visible.

This is what they've been pushing for with app stores.

ecshafer2• 7 months ago

So as opposed to the old twitter method which was a vague “you know someone at twitter”, which led to random “journalists” and nobodies being verified. Paying money is just as arbitrary. Money at least means a credit card transaction happened.

ceejayoz4• 7 months ago

An actual human employee at Twitter vouching for someone’s existence seems far more reputable than being able to purchase a Visa gift card in a convenience store.

Verification was “this account is who it says it is”. Not “this account has $10 to spare”.

cientifico• 7 months ago

I don't know how it is in US, but in Europe, the amount of scams is growing. Twitter blue checkmark was created to distinguish real humans vs scammers.

The fine was to protected the users from that scam.

I like paying taxes to protected the users that don't have the ability to detect scams as we all here have (most of the time).

EU miss the point equally to the Congress in uuss when non tech people believe they can rule (or just lobbied).

But on this case, there will be no problem if Twitter had decided to use another checkmark for pro accounts.

The EU's fine against X is not about speech or ‘censorship’

Related Stories