Elon Musk has until the end of Wednesday to respond to demands from Brussels to remove graphic images and disinformation linked to the violence in Israel from his social network X — or face the full force of Europe’s new social media rules.

Thierry Breton, the European Union commissioner who oversees the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) rules, wrote to the owner of X, formerly Twitter, to warn Musk of his obligations under the bloc’s content rules.

If Musk fails to comply, the EU’s rules state X could face fines of up to 6 percent of its revenue for potential wrongdoing. Under the regulations, social media companies are obliged to remove all forms of hate speech, incitement to violence and other gruesome images or propaganda that promote terrorist organizations.

Since Hamas launched its violent attacks on Israel on October 7, X has been flooded with images, videos and hashtags depicting — in graphic detail — how hundreds of Israelis have been murdered or kidnapped. Under X’s own policies, such material should also be removed immediately.

  • atetulo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What are you talking about?

    I’m specifically referring to the videos and images.

    gruesome reality.

    other gruesome images

    Maybe work on your reading comprehension to make sure you don’t embarrass yourself like that again.

    Oh the ironing.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Child sex abuse is a reality we have to confront head-on, but we don’t share images of it for awareness.

      Likewise, you shouldn’t be sharing images of the slaughtered bodies of civilians to draw awareness to terrorism.

      • atetulo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Woah, child sex abuse isn’t the same as war though. People already take it plenty seriously and nobody is glorifying it (out in the open.)

        Your analogy isn’t a 1:1 representation of the topic at hand. All it does is pivot from the actual topic to something that’s easier for you to argue against.