pms

Just like Trump sincerely believed he won the 2020 election.

By buying US products, using US-based media, and adopting US narratives? That's a part of the problem. This world is lacking multilateralism.

I really hope they go ahead and create the portal. I mean it.

It's a waste of resources, but please do it! The entire "European Union censors" narrative is a hoax [1], so the portal will achieve nothing, but you've got to do what you've got to do!

[1] First, the EU countries have much higher World Press Freedom Index than the US. Second, once you start reading how little there is of the alleged "censorship" in the EU, you realize it's a no-brainer aiming to protect people.

Unable? :-D

For the most part, sexy never left, and statistics bear this out

Recently I've seen a figure in a reputable source showing that people tend to have less sex than ~20-30 years ago (even if we just look at married couples).

Clearly US Republicans, Russia, and Israel drive a push towards nationalism. Republicans and Elon Musk openly campaign for far-right European parties like AfD. You're getting causality wrong, or just don't want to recognize it, because the reality (rightfully) isn't as motivating as your image of it -- at least it shouldn't, but do you care?

No, that's not what I want. I want platform transparency and accountability.

Meanwhile, you're giving yourself the right to talk lies about me without my consent when I kindly ask you not to do that. Who acts here like an authoritarian?

Also, there are already authorities you describe, and they can do whatever they want without any oversight: the platforms.

I do think Europe should become more self-reliant. I also work a lot and rarely take any vacation time, but I don't see any sense -- except for egoism -- in working so much just to spread more AI slop online, mislead and polarize societies, or support a genocide. I think Europe has learned its lesson during the World Wars.

Agreed that's inconsistent and not ok. We need rules, procedures, and systems that apply equally to different sides.

Please elaborate.

I'd say that's fine. That's a great opportunity for the EU to develop its industry.

That's exactly the reason why we need platform transparency and accountability regulation like the EU's DSA.

Did you read the article? X was first to be accused by the EU Commission.

Please don't put your words in my mouth. You can speak only for yourself. And, frankly, it's not ok to write false information about a person you don't know.

Yes, which is why we need to balance who has power, and facilitate independent research, rather than to give away to either industry or government.

That's not clear to me at all. Would you mind elaborating?

No researcher will request or get access to "5 million Facebook logins" through the DSA, since such a request wouldn't comply with the DSA requirements, so your point is moot. In fact, we live in a quite different world than you imagine. Currently, researchers don't even have access to the public data, as the article points out. When it comes to private data, researchers won't get access to private messages either, but rather to aggregate-level privacy-preserving data (assuming that the DSA isn't killed before any of this happens by the industry and Republicans, which you seem to advocate for).

I'm very curious why this is downvoted. Would any of the down-voters mind elaborating?

It's obviously not about "manipulating the voting tabulation". Influencing people to vote the way you want them to is fine as long as it's not based on deceit. Is this what you can't stand?

It's also quite optimistic to think that the industry will self-regulate, as the recent history of Boeing 737 MAX shows...

Long story short, this "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and their data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.

This "research" and data access wouldn't be allowed under the DSA, because (i) the researcher didn't provide any data protection safeguards, (ii) his university (and data protection officer) didn't assume legal liability for his research, (iii) his research isn't focused on systemic risks to society.

That's a great point. I agree that's a danger, but please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates an institution of (national) Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that decide whether a researcher's access to data is well-reasoned. In most cases that institution will be in a different country (the country of company's EU's HQs) than the researcher. That said, there could be malicious players involved, e.g., researchers and respective DSCs secretly recruited by a government to influence elections. This, however, sounds implausible, since in principle both the DSCs and researchers are independent from national governments.

Also, we can have depolarized recommendation algorithms. We don't need to go back all the way to timelines.

Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of. Is this really that far from the goal of Cambridge Analytica of influencing elections without people's knowledge? Is it fine for large online platforms to influence election outcomes? Why wouldn't an online platform be used to this end if that's beneficial for it and there is no regulation discouraging it?

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

I don't think it's about the US in its entirety, nor ads, but Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of:

[1] https://www.techpolicy.press/x-polls-skew-political-realitie...

[2] https://zenodo.org/records/14880275

I hope it's quite the opposite, since this can lead to innovation as we figure out how to depolarize social media platforms or how to develop more politically neutral online media.

If applications and datasets are fragmented, then that's going to be a nightmare for all stakeholders, including:

* researchers, because they will have to write data access applications, including a sufficient description of planned safeguards, detailed enough to the point that their university is ready to take a legal liability (and you can imagine how easy this will be), and

* digital service coordinators, because it will take ages for them to process applications from thousands of researchers each requesting a slightly different dataset.

In the end, we need to develop standardized datasets across platforms and to streamline data access processes so that they're safe and efficient.

Except platforms don't allow it and have sued for it...

https://www.google.com/search?q=x+sues+researchers