Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for the internal market, warns Elon Musk about disinformation on X related to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Europe gives Elon Musk 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas war misinformation and violence on X::Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for the internal market, warns Elon Musk about disinformation on X related to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
I deleted my Twitter at the beginning of this year. Never used it much, just followed a lot of metal bands on it. I don't regret it for a single second. Everyday since, it's just been one giant non-stop shit show. It's sad to see so many still use it, but for my own good conscience, I can't support that platform in any way. I avoid it like the plague.
I've only used it like 5 times to contact airlines. Their social media team seems better staffed and more helpful than the hotline. Tried using it in the early days, but the 160 char limit was a total turnoff for me. Felt like back in the 90's with a 160 char limit imposed on text messages, and everybody using cryptic abbreviations. That almost triggered some high school PTSD. And when they changed that I was already too far immersed in other channels to get my updates to really bother trying again.
He's basically the new Trump, in that for five years you could not escape Trump's fucking face on every website you visited. Perhaps Musk isn't quite that level, but he's not far off. He's in the news an insane amount, and it's basically as annoying as Trump, only he's not as ugly or stupid.
Elon is Desantis. Like him or not, Trump makes great TV. Its like the best thriller ever created. Elon is fine when other people talk about him. But when he's on TV, he's boring just like Ron. He's got no personality.
I still see Trumps face everywhere, though primarily on left wing media. Oddly enough, I see it there more than I do on right wing media. (Gotta see what both sides are saying, the truth is in the middle somewhere)
"Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for the internal market, said in a letter addressed to Musk on Tuesday that his office has “indications” that groups are spreading misinformation and “violent and terrorist” content on X, and urged the billionaire to respond within a 24-hour period."
When someone claims they are so work-focused that they sleep in the office and expect others to follow suit, finding out that they have a high level character in a game that's only a few months old is worth bashing them over.
It's not that Elon plays games, it's that he pretends he's too busy to do so and expects his employees to be too busy to do so.
That's not the point. The point is that oligarchs always go on about how hard they work, which makes them somehow deserve all the wealth they've swindled us out of. But if you work so hard, you won't have time to sink endless hours into a game.
Assume 80% of that is Europe, and a 25% drop in revenue since X, is $1.2bn, then 6% is $72m. This would likely be a daily fine of about $197K per day USD, minus shifty billionaire revenue reporting.
It's 6% of world-wide turnover, not EU revenue. The neat part about turnover is that you can't play shenanigans with accounting. It's very unlikely to be the full 6% though and they will want to keep some headroom for escalation and even more egregious cases.
But yes this is absolutely "drive a company bankrupt" kind of territory and that's precisely the intention. Either Twitter shapes up, leaves the EU market, or gets fined into non-existence.
I'm having real hard time trying to understand what kind of "misinformation and violence" is spreading on twitter, that isn't on other social media platforms such as right here. I wonder what even counts as "misinformation" at this point, as you can make quite outrageous but factual claims about both sides (Israeli government and hamas)
This is the most confusing conflict I've ever paid any significant attention to, and it feels like the more I learn, the less I understand.
I would argue a major difference between misinformation on some place like Lemmy and misinformation on Twitter, is that Musk as owner of Twitter is amplifying this misinformation. Elon Musk frequently replies to people spreading misinfo and shouts out their accounts.
What if it was some other celebrity with similarly large following doing that on some other platform?
I don't quite buy that explanation. Basically the same thing is happening elsewhere too but instead of it being done by a single individual it's done by many. The end result is just the same.
They are both terrible, but the thing is that Israel has a positive connection to Western governments and the Palestinians don't. So when Hamas kills civilians it's jihad and terror and when Israel does it, it gets handwaved or even supported.
Our media is not unbiased, no matter how much they tell you and are trying to uphold the illusion of factual correctness. We simply live on the other side of the narrative and if that is challenged, it's called "misinformation". Anyone thinking there is a right and a wrong side here is either a moron or has a personal stake like family or friends in the region.
The conflict in that area will never end without secularism and the chance of that happening is zero. It's one cut of religious fanaticism versus another.
This comment is a good example of why your "Misinformation" policing is fascist authoritarianism.
Your debunked "misinformation" was just debunked again as the images of the dead babies have hit the internet. But according to you, the original claims should have been censored as misinformation.
I tried to trace the origins of the conflict yesterday, and I got to the Russian revolution with still no concrete answer. I figured out the reason for the Balfour Declaration and the reason why there was a Zionist movement for a Jewish state, but I have yet to figure out what factors caused the events leading to that.
I'm glad that someone is fighting misinformation. What scares me, is if the right wing in the US starts trying to do the same thing. Can you imagine them cracking down on Facebook, X, etc for misinformation like the EU is doing? It would only be Biden conspiracies and pro Trump propaganda allowed. Good thing we aren't giving our government that power.
As much as I hate disinformation on the internet and witnessed what it can do to people. I am very cautious when governments place themselves as the arbiters of truth. we should fight for the freedom of speech even when it is contrary to our beliefs. disinformation should be fraught against with facts and transparency.
I agree with you, but I'm curious to know your thoughts: What do you do when the 2-3% of people who are willing to take that fight head-on aren't nearly enough to combat the endless bots and astroturfers across social media? I don't count myself amongst those 2-3% by the way, I'm on Lemmy and not Reddit in part to avoid some of that. Engaging is far too much effort and I have my own problems to worry about.
It's about making choices really. you could either take everything and do your best to sieve through the huge amount of disinformation everywhere even if it takes too much time and even risks. or chose a "good-willing good-intending" governments and mass media apparatus to be your main source of information and final arbiter of truth.
In both choices you will encounter disinformation, bias, and propaganda, except in the last one you will only be presented with one version of the events, that's why I prefer to have access to all propaganda(s) to choose my poison.
The government has a process called the courts where they decide on what was the "truth" of the matter. Hell, they'll even restrict your speech during a trial, jurors included. The trick here is you give power to the people to decide, arguably this is playing out in our school systems as well over books.
Look, idgaf about musk or anything he does but why is it on him to fix misinformation on x? Why is it the job of the platform owner? Id really like it if someone explained this to me.
The way I see it, content on these platforms is user generated, misinformed or not, propaganda of one side or the other... If someone decides to put up a plain old text document and let everyone modify it, should the owner of said document really be liable for what others put on it? What if the document has no owner and is hosted in a peer to peer fashion? Who do we give 24 hours to fix it then?
The EU decided that it rather doesn't have any platforms than some which allow hate/propaganda/childabuse. The intent is to fight the mentioned things and ideally remove them from society. By and large, this decision is a democratic one and fine.
Platforms may continue operation, if they promise to remove all stuff. Here there are two options, one stipulating that all content needs to be checked before its published. Thats the draconian approach. Currently its fine to only go after user reported stuff.
Now to your first question: They fon't gaf about musk and don't care if he removes the stuff. But if he choses not to, they will shutdown twitter for europeans. Thats why they adress him, because he as a major shareholder and CEO (is he?) calls the shots there.
The biggest question for me, is who determines what's misinformation? Honestly, it's determined by someone with a bias as to what is real information, and what is false. What if it was the Republicans in the US making that decision? It would completely change what's considered misinformation. This is where the dangers of censoring misinformation come in. It's all about who is making the decisions. Sure, you may agree with the people making the decisions now, but what about in 5, 10 years?
The beheaded babies thing is a good example. People called it misinformation for days, but today they were forced to release images of the dead babies because nobody believed multiple independent journalists from different countries.
I hate this word disinformation so much. We cannot censor any information on the internet even if it's a total bulshit. I'm on Lemmy cause there is no censorship and everyone should think about that nowadays. Anything you post online can have legal consequences and that's complete bulshit squared. #freespeach
There is a ton of censorship here, rightfully so. Lies must be stopped from spreading, they cause way too much damage. Most humans do not think critical enough to effectively filter out lies. This might be a inherent trait of humans. But even if we are critical enough, it is easy to drown out real information with a ton of misinformation.
The whole premise of stopping lies is flawed cause you never can stop them. The society would have to impose complete censorship of data which is firstly against all human rights and secondary everyone would have to state the unilateral truth which is utopian in it's nature. As long as there are different opinions and facts there are many shades of truth..
Censorship not from the government, though. So if someone's being a pedant, they might insist it's not "censorship" to tailor content for a platform or service.
That is the only part of the above post that is wrong, though. Governments have no business deciding what is "disinformation", much less to censor such.