I want it banned here too.
Ditch it.It will have 0 to none effect of EU. And Mr.NaciSalute won’t get broke.Mastodon is the way.
banning this website would be super good for Blue sky and mastodon
lol people will go to meta threads first, not that.
Those are rookie numbers.
i want it banned even if it doesnt
Certainly not Lemmy Users. Lemmy users love that nazi shit with how much they repost it here.
And ban Facebook too. It’s been breaking the law a lot longer!
More than half are ok with any company breaking the law?
According to a new YouGov survey, a vast majority of respondents in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland (60-78%) think that the EU should take further action against X if it does not address breaches to European law brought forward by the Commission last year [1]. The majority of those (62%-73%) who wanted further action – and 47% of total participants – want X to be banned from the EU if it refuses to address these breaches [2]
Don’t count uk as Europe plz, they ban everything. They’ll ban your momma for saying god bless you.
Please put an X on X!
Lmao, if only
I wonder how the survey has been done?
Because if it has been done by phone, “do you want x to be banned if it continues to break the law?”, then it’s biased because X is historically used as a placeholder and only a ketamine addict could think that is a good idea to destroy a brand for that
I say that, in order to save the species, ban all social media, everywhere.
You might not realize it, but the Fediverse is social media so a ban would be rather detrimental to this place.
Damn near the entire internet is “social media” but people usually mean “social networking sites”.
but lemmy :(
That’s literally not possible.
I’m not talking about from a practical standpoint I’m talking about from a theoretical standpoint.
Given that social media being a form of media where humans socialize with each other is not something that can be banned because humans are intrinsically social creatures and modern technology facilities media based communication.
What we don’t need is social media banned. We need regulation and enforcement and teeth for those regulations.
Almost all of the bad and negative parts of social media are results of companies driving profits and engagement at the cost of everything else, including the well-being of their users (Such as artificially, inflating, negativity and division because that drives more engagement).
Make the platform liable for the hate posted on them. They have algorithms manipulating what we see, those same algorithms send those messages to us for profit.
Hence the justification form holding them liable for content. Civil suits will destroy them in no time.
I don’t like the idea of “banning” users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.
I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned. What’s different about X? The fact that Elon Musk runs it and he’s in with a powerful dictator?
At some point you have to admit the CSAM is not the problem, it’s the person running it, whether they have the power to stop you/fight back or not.
not just banned, but there would be criminal charges brought on the owners.
Musk should be prosecuted for distribution of CSAM.
Absolutely. And soliciting Epstein for sex with minors. Let’s not forget about that. He was begging to get on the island and get some underage tail. It was pretty pathetic.
He should be held liable, but he won’t be. Not by people who do the same thing.
What’s different about X?
Well, you kind of said it yourself: The fact that, since it’s sadly still one of the largest social outlets, there’s a whole economy around it. If Europe banned X tomorrow, a lot of people and companies would take a non-negligible hit to their revenue. We can argue that probably these people are not a majority of the other half of people in Europe that don’t want X gone, but in the end, politicians and lawmakers care about money and (in a very distant second place) what the majority of their constituents say.
I wonder how feasible it would be if they’d announce a deadline whereby it would be blocked and recommend people and business to move onto a federated alternative.
You and I both know people, politicians, journalists would just move to Threads before they move to the fedi or Bluesky or any FOSS alternative.
They want an algorithm.
If Europe banned X tomorrow, a lot of people and companies would take a non-negligible hit to their revenue.
Care to back up that claim? What exactly is Twitter’s contribution to their bottom line that they cannot live without?
I mean, it’s obvious, the reach.
Big follower count = More Reach = More people likely to click the links in your posts or contact you
And that can be done elsewhere, but would require basically starting again from scratch, a big risk for a lot of corporations, and a big risk for independent creators (especially smut creators)
Tbh, I very much doubt that the bottom lines of, say, Dassault, BMW, Metro, or UBS would even budge if Twitter were to self-ignite over night, and their Twitter accounts with it. They’re (still) on this dumpster fire of a platform because “everybody is” and some bellend in marketing thinks it impossible not to do what all the others are doing. I’d argue no consumer cares what the Twitter account of Tesco’s has or hasn’t been posting this week, and it has zero effect on their purchasing decisions there.
“Self-employed creators”, aka influencers, aka people shilling products while pretending to be your friend, might be affected more because they lack any non-virtual connection to their “customers” But then again, we could ask ourselves if these provide any real-world value and should exist in the first place.
I mean I enjoy porn, and they are included in your much maligned self-employed creators. Also I enjoy YouTubers also in that category, and Twitch streamers, and Artists.
Also you’re entirely ignoring there’s a middle point, the companies with less than 500 employees total.
And honestly it’s less often that they use it that matters to them, but that it’s seen by fools as dodgy for a company to not have any social media presence, so they feel obligated to have one.
Thankfully the ones at highest risk from Twitter getting enshitification are those which are trying to move away by doing posts that are like
Follow me on OTHER SERVICE to get posts a day early, I repost from there to here
They wouldn’t suddenly ban it though.
Any ban would roll in without enough time for people to switch away. Twitter doesn’t do anything special that can’t be replicated elsewhere.
I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned.
On what legal grounds would that happen?
Confiscate every server that X uses as evidence. Same thing you do with any CSAM case.
And how does that work legally?
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read (on sites like Ars Technica that cover technology) about dark web sites trading CSAM being shut down. By the FBI in America, by Interpol in the EU… I don’t know what legal grounds they use to do it.
You don’t think CSAM should be illegal? Or you genuinely don’t understand why it is, or what law it breaks?
