Crossposting here as I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom

  • Viri4thus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    “I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom.”

    *uses change.org instead of the EU mechanism to submit petitions to the parliament…

    This has to have been made by an American living in Europe.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 minutes ago

    I also think he should be investigated for buying votes in the recent election.

  • INeedMana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I don’t know

    Wouldn’t that enable an angle of “martyr for freedom of speech”?

    And while I agree that it stopped being what it was and we can’t rely on it anymore, wouldn’t that separate EU from the rest of the world given current market share?

    In my opinion: abandon - yes. Ban - no

    • sleen@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Initially thought the post was an attempt on a joke. But yes, what would banning prove?

      X might be a threat to privacy and freedom but doesn’t Facebook, Microsoft and others do the same. It looks like a poorly developed plan.

    • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Abandon would be the best approach. A ban would just make people want to use it more.

      When twitter (now formally know as “X”) was first a thing, the only reason I joined was because private business, city services, and news agencies became a little easier to follow in one unified location. It also made it easier to reach them with quick tweets.

      Maybe the solution is to put a restriction on business, news agencies, and government services from using it?

    • .Donuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Wouldn’t that enable an angle of “martyr for freedom of speech”?

      Could you elaborate on this angle? I’m not very well versed in the rights of companies operating in the EU, but I’m unsure “freedom of speech” is one of them.

      Edit: I did find information about how social media needs to help us protect freedom of speech for all of their users. Currently, X is doing the opposite it seems

  • felsiq@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    42 minutes ago

    Fuck that platform, if it dies right now the world will be a better place overnight. That being said, I’m against it being banned - imo if we’re petitioning for anything, it should be to get governments off of it and onto better alternatives.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Idk why a ban is necessary. Just remove some of the protections so they can be held liable for things they should be held liable for.

    They’re currently not liable for third-party content (if they have reasonable moderation policies and respond in a timely manner to requests, yada yada). But if they promote it, they are no longer a passive hosting platform; they are actively promoting content so should be held proportionately liable for that content.

  • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Don’t think it’s a good thing to ban anything from anywhere. The best way is to make them realize how bad mainstreams socials are bad. Everyone is concerned about the Elon Musk’s social but nobody care when GAMAM harvest your datas

  • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    As much as I hate X, I might have to think about this one for a while. Sure, this platform is a vessel for fascist propaganda and a threat to democracy, but on the other hand, creating a legitimate precedent for banning a social network on political grounds might be a slippery slope. The EU has already made dubious reforms regarding internet freedom, like their antiterrorist bill which require website hosts to remove content whithin an hour if it is signaled to them by the police. I’m not sure if giving them more power and legitimacy in policing online content is a good idea…

    • chloroken@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Shutting down a nontheoretical fascist breeding ground VS. a theoretical slide to 1984.

      Isn’t this the lesser evilism I was fed for the last year? Isn’t this the trolley problem? This should be easy for the American left to get behind.

      Instead its “okay a little fascism is okay, as a treat” and its odd to me.

      • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Maybe it’d be an easy choice for the American left, but I’m from the French left. Along with groups such as La Quadrature du Net have been protesting reforms like the aforementioned european directive for adressing antiterrorist contents, of France’s temporary ban on Telegram during the riots or the ban of Tiktok in Kanaky during the uprising, and now we’re supposed to turn around and say “actually censorship is cool”? Are we to empower those we’re fighting in hope that they exclusively use this power against our common enemies? I’ve left Twitter the very day its purchase by the muskrat was officialized and I’ve been telling everyone I know to do as much. Sure, a european ruling would give me something I want, but I don’t trust in what comes next. There’s no way the European Union bans X and don’t end up blocking left wing fedi instances like ml or hexbear, as soon as their existence is brought to their attention.

        • chloroken@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Sorry, let me be clear. I was pointing out how if one’s strategy is to let fascist breeding grounds sit unmolested, one will need a lot more compensation than hypothetical slippery slopes. As stated, the trade off is hardly worth it.

          It’s the same style of rationale for why many leftists didn’t vote Harris.

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      If you don’t censor hate speech and allow malicious propaganda to be the default, is there really any value in letting it be accessible?

      The problem really is that the lenders of X’s debt probably have a significant influence and have a vested interest in recouping their money.

      • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I don’t believe there is any value in X. In fact I’d say it has negative value. However, granting the UE power and legitimacy to censor any website for political reason also has a negative value, and I’m not certain which is lower.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    25 minutes ago

    I mean, it’s a controversial one but if citizens want it then why not? I see some people here saying that banning it would be a bad decision for the government but in case of a petition, they’re not doing it because they want to but because their voters told them to.

    Also I don’t have much against such a radical approach to improving privacy. Most people nowadays can’t be made to care or do something. They can only be forced. Though such enforcement can make them vote against that government but that’s up to demographic researchers to analyze.

  • eldavi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    i wonder if elon would prod trump to make good on their threat to defund nato if the eu cancels twitter. how would it impact ukraine?