- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256
To whom it may concern.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’ll rather choose myself which social media platforms I use rather than let the authorities decide for me. Banning things you don’t like is not a solution because soon the things you do like are getting banned too because someone else doesn’t like them. This is so incredibly narrow sighted.
What are the chances of this actually happening, Europeans? GDPR did, so it doesn’t seem impossible, but this is a lot more targeted at one specific company.
There’s also the fact he’s now close the the new American strongman, and they don’t want to piss off America.
good; it should be banned; it’s not a social media outlet it’s a propaganda wing for a fascist regime.
I don’t like Twitter, but I am also not for banning a service or application nationwide. This should be the choice of the user. Do not take away freedom of choice, regardless of your feelings, believes or what you like. Do not be like China or Russia.
Instead fight against the actual problem, like disinformation or whatever it is. I’m absolutely against such a ban.
…banning a service or application nationwide.
I’m absolutely against such a ban.
Good thing you’re not going to be affected by such a ban, seen as no European would have made the mistake of saying ‘nationwide’ in reference to the EU as a whole. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
deleted by creator
I don’t really think it’s funny, at all.
Should people also have the freedom of choice to buy snake oil that claims to cure cancer, etc? The opposite of freedom is not regulation. That’s a bunch of propaganda used by people when they want to change an inconvenient topic. It’s used, for example, when talking about the ACA and claiming that nationalized health insurance would rob the people of choosing their blood sucking middle man for health insurance.
How is that even remotely equivalent comparison?
Are you defending snake oil? The pseudoscience con so uniquituously used to deprive the desperate from their money that it became the term used to describe “harmful bullshit sold for profit?”
Freedom of choice or not, I suppose you should be able to spend your money however you want.
But if someone is selling people lies under the promise of medical miracles, we need to throw the book at them.
Are you
No.
spend your money however you want
Big fan of the Citizens United decision and money in politics, I take it?
Ah, I’m still waking up, so I must have misunderstood.
I hadn’t considered political spending, but I didn’t get the impression we were talking about super PACs. Those are abhorrent, and undemocratic.
My stance was that if a person wants to buy something that’s stupid, ineffective, but gives them some small degree of hope and doesn’t harm others, then they should be able to. However, I’m also of the opinion that regulators need to remove those products from the market because they’re lying to people about their efficacy.
Ideally we’d be teaching people that snake oil doesn’t work. But the current political climate suggests that Big Snake Oil has captured the regulation, so I don’t see that happening either.
except it’s literally state sponsored propaganda.
Isn’t blocking a disinfo place a way of fighting disinformation? I don’t get it
Is there no disinformation on other social media platforms?
Blocking an entire community, service or application blocks access to non disinformation and normal communication too. Instead fight against the specific issues. Or with your logic we need to ban every platform such as Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, Twitch, Discord and even Wikipedia. Because misinformation is everywhere.
I don’t want anyone decide for myself what to use. If I want to use Twitter, that should be MY decision, not yours, not the one with the campaign here and certainly not any government.
we need to ban every platform such as Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, Twitch, Discord
Now you’re talking.
And Lemmy, Mastodon, Bluesky etc.
I imagine that Twitter being blocked in Europe might actually lead to some of those sources moving elsewhere to continue to reach their audience. I’m not a big fan of blocking websites either in a general sense, but a I can see why countries would want to avoid having what’s happening to the US be repeated within their own borders, and that seems to be a distinct danger with Twitter. There’s a pretty good argument to be made that that’s literally its purpose at this point.
Dismantling legitimate governments with disinformation seems like a pretty viable power grab strategy for billionaires trying to create a megacorp hellscape where they get to do whatever they want until the planet becomes uninhabitable for humans some time after their own deaths.
Every service may be abused to spread misinformation. Here, the complaint isn’t that people abuse a service against the owner’s will, but that the service is operated to spread misinformation.
One way to address this could be to look at moderation. Is there meaningful moderation to limit misinformation? A service operated to spread misinformation wouldn’t moderate it.
There needs to be due process. We can’t ban a website because 10k people said it has disinformation. The DSA is the process for combatting disinformation on major platforms, and we should follow it. Twitter is already being sued under the DSA, and they will be banned in the next few months if they do not fulfill their obligations to fight disinformation.
It had long since hit critical mass in Europe before it was bait and switched to serve as a US fascist tool of propaganda. Banning it is the correct response.
change.org isn’t going to do much, and the EU already has an ongoing lawsuit with Twitter regarding its disinformation promotion.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6709
It could be argued that the EU prosecutors should speed things up, though.
I am afraid they already did:
Commission concludes that online social networking service of X should not be designated under the Digital Markets Act – (October 2024)Please see the comment by @[email protected], I am mistaken here.I would have loved to see the initiators to go the official way for the petition as I agree that change.org won’t change much. Here we go: https://commission.europa.eu/get-involved/engage-eu-policymaking/petition-eu_en
The DMA has no bearing on disinfo, it’s about access, like mandating a public API to federate with or banning self-preferencing with other products.
The disinfo thing is regulated by the DSA - Digital Services Act, and it very much applies to Twitter.
Can non Europeans sign ?
I hope not.
Well I just did, it’s on charge.org and I’m Australian
This is stupid. People not living in that country should not be able to decide. It’s like Russian people would decide what I can access and not in my country… Sorry not being personal here, I just find this is wrong. I am not taking your rights way if you have the right to apply, just saying my opinion.
This is stupid. People not living in that country should not be able to decide.
It’s a change.org petition … it’s not going to decide anything.
That’s not the point. The point is that people not living here wants to change things they are not affected by. I’m not trying to change the USA too, because I don’t live there. I mean that by principle. Edit: And for clarification, I didn’t insult the person I was responding to. I meant the concept is stupid, not the person.
