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.
Is this the thing that finally makes Musk feel some pain? You can’t wiggle out of this one, EU law is pretty tight on this stuff.
Is this the thing that finally makes Musk feel some pain?
Not if his goal is to run Twitter into the ground. (And I’m about 3 months or so into believing it is.)
Although I can understand that perspective, I honestly think that he’s actually just very, very dumb and completely clueless about how money actually works and how businesses function. He’s rich enough to never have had to learn any of that and spend his way through failure after failure. I am absolutely certain that he believed that he’d run in there, steer the ship right, and all would be well.
No he’s very smart in that he’s using Xitter to increase his influence, and thereby his wealth in the long term. Gonna cost him but he’ll probably come out net-positive, even if Xitter doesn’t.
Either you’re oblivious, or you’re being paid to prop up this “Elon’s just a big dummy” idea.
You know he had a fair bit of involvement in some other businesses, right? His destructive behaviour has been on an entirely different level from the moment he acquired Twitter.
The investors that gave him money to buy Twitter aren’t going to be happy if he intentionally squanders their money.
On the one hand, you insult me. Then you make a comment that supports my position. Very odd.
Fine, I’ll bite. How am I supporting your position?
Yeah absolutely, be thought that it was easy because he didn’t pause to consider any of the confounding factors - the same mistake he always makes, self drive to Mars bases he gets fixated on the fact it’s possible and doesn’t really consider the many things making it difficult.
I think he thought that he’d go in and don’ta big lever that turns it from biasing the left and amplifying people hating billionaires then when he turned it off everyone would cheer and clap. He’s the typical idiot that has shitty political options and thinks everyone else secretly agrees bit only he’s breve enough to say it.
The better would have been to ban Twitter. People and politics have to understand you can’t talk with irrational people.
Poop emoji incoming
Removed by mod
This is not toothless…well it is a bit in that they constantly warn instead of imposing the fines but 6% of revenue has fuck all to do with net profit(which is always positive or else it would be a loss).
EU can only penalize him on revenue (not profit) in the EU. So likely small fries compared to the billions of dollars of devaluation and advertiser revenue he’s already squandered on his crusade.
I mean, twitter is at the risk of bankruptcy so…
You’re thinking of profit. Revenue is all money coming in before expenses. Revenue is still a big number even if they’re losing money.
Also it’s 6% of turnover, not revenue. And world-wide, not just the EU.
Removed by mod
He’s gonna fuck this up, too.
That’s irking to limiting press freedom if gruesome photos and videos are forbidden. That ain’t good, EU!
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.
“removing my propaganda is against my freedumb of speech!!!”
The gruesome images part is only said by Politico. Read the original open letter. The EU is not complaining about the images hurting their sensibilities by being too gruesome, but that they are either from different conflicts or straight up from video games.
The EU is not offended by the gruesomeness of the images, but by the fact that they are lies. Politico is reporting inaccurately at best on this.
We don’t have a ‘free press’. We have a ‘private press’. We have all the news they want to print. Musk, for example, has suppressed and banned, and blocked all over ex-twitter.
The US isn’t the world.
*Yawn…fascists demand platform…something, something, freeze peach
Get out of here with your silly US-centric idea of “absolute free speech”. Pretty much every civilized country in the world has boundaries to what is considered acceptable.
And even the US does (though they are fewer than elsewhere, granted).
But for some reason the US has produced this myth that absolute freedom of speech (which it doesn’t have) somehow is the best possible choice (which it isn’t).
A free press is hardly a US-centric idea.
It isn’t and it’s a good idea.
But somehow the US doesn’t seem to be as good at having one as they might want to think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
It’s not terrible in that index, but it’s below most European countries.
Edit: or maybe you prefer an index by a US instituation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report) the ranking looks pretty similar, though.
Free speech and free press are vital to intellectual progress.
Information needs to be exchanged to grow.
They were referring to absolute free speech. Something that many people in the US believe to be a real thing.
What intellectual growth can one expect from videos of Hamas slaughtering civilians in slow motion, overlaid with glorifying music?
My favourite is “absolute free speech!!” combined with “if you say something someone doesn’t like, they are entitled to punch you”
Or “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” lmao but then it’s not [absolute] free speech
Its freedom of speech from the government not carte blanche to say what you want.
Granted even that is still slightly restricted.
It baffles me that y’all are ok with being muzzled.
Straight talk time.
Those images should be posted and not removed.
People need to see what is happening for them to react.
Pictures and videos proved the holocaust to the world.
Pictures and videos got the us out of Vietnam
People need to see things that make them viscerally uncomfortable.
Its freedom of speech from the government not carte blanche to say what you want.
No other institution can instill punishment for speech except the government, so freedom of speech from the government means freedom of speech absolute. Joe Blogs migh have a pop at me, but then he’s guilty of assault. My employer might decide my views are not consistent with theirs, but unless I was acting as their representative at the time most decent worker protection laws across the globe would deem it as you acting as a private individual, and therefore none of your employer’s concern.
Now, is it polite, civil and sociable to say certain things? No, but if I’m prepared to contravene social etiquette, I can say whatever I want under a system of protected speech from the government.
The only images the EU asked to have removed are images from unrelated conflicts and video games portrayed as geniune images of the current events, so blatant disinformation.
It’s in the request made by the EU. The Politico article made up the part where all graphic images are to be removed.
I kinda want to see if we can post enough screenshots from DayZ and Left 4 Dead, calling them photos from our neighborhood to get the AI media to report on a global zombie virus.
Politico is engaged in blatant disinformation. How surprising. The actual text of the letter from the EU is online and it is very clear what they are demanding.
Ah
My favourite is “absolute free speech!!” combined with “if you say something someone doesn’t like, they are entitled to punch you”
Anyone who says that is forgetting that punching falls under assault.
Hate speech is far beyond merely “something I don’t like”. It is advocating for the oppression and even eradication of people based on their very identity.
Hate speech should not be tolerated if we want to live in a society that tolerates the existence of others. (So called “paradox of tolerance” which is really not a paradox when you frame it as I have). We can tolerate the existence of bigoted assholes but prohibit them spreading their bigotry. Otherwise we live in a society that supports intolerance.
No, you don’t understand, it’s easy:
- if the government punishes you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
- if woke Twitter cancels you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
- if a far-right/Republican shoots you down for what you said, it’s just the consequences of your Free Speech™
- if you’re writing a book about sexual education, it’s not Free Speech™ anymore, and you should be censored
Easy, huh? /s
Absolute minus nipples.
Those offensive nubs just can not stop swearing.
The concept of absolute freedom of speech is based on lessons learned in history and even the present. As soon as you start limiting speech you have to draw a line and nobody can agree on where that line should be. The real issue however, is that it’s ultimately government that decides.
A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that’s a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.
There’s definitely consequences to unhinderred free speech but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.
The lesson learned from history, at least when it came to drafting the German Basic Law in 1948/49, is that freedom of speech must bow to the sanctity of human dignity, as does everything else.
Indeed. Something the USA probably will never learn
This is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
As in A is like B is like C […] is like Z.
In the case at hand, no one is talking about censoring someone’s spicy take on bidenomics - is a binary question of “is this image likely to support extremism”.
History does not show that censoring this type of material leads to an autocracy.
On the flip side, i learned from the finest Free Speech Absolutist that absolute free speech is absolute bullshit, as it’s less about free speech and more about my speech.
A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that’s a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.
The life hack we use in Europe is that we have more than two parties and a functioning electoral system, so the regulatory capture of corporations and their fascist leaning CEOs is only partial. That makes it easier to draw the line where people want it to, since we can vote out our government.
So…
You think it should be legal for any random person to stand outside your house with a megaphone telling everyone that you’re a child abuser and the only way to protect the kids is to immediately kill you?
No I don’t personally believe in absolute free speech I was just trying to offer perspective in response to a comment that was rejecting the concept outright.
I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though.
Did you really just go from “I think history shows us that the alternative is worse” to this?
cringe
That’s so much sadder than if you were being authentically stupid…
What’s sad is you being mean to a person for simply making a comment on a social media platform.
I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though
Wait…
I thought you just said you were trolling…
Now your serious and it was a legitimate question?
JK, I don’t give a fuck, I’m not even sure why I didn’t block you already.
I believe the classic example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater
Which ironically is actually legal in the US. The big lines are libel, slander, defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, fraud, threats and child pornography.
Assuming the person is not actually a child abuser, the example they used would actually cross the line in the US but really only for a civil case, rather than criminal. It wouldn’t even count as incitement unless he was calling for the alleged child abuser to be lynched or something, even “someone ought to string up this child abuser” probably doesn’t count as incitement.
Yeah, but when explaining it to someone with zero empathy, they dont understand unless it’s explicitly about them…
If “fire in a theater” would work on that person, it would have already. It’s not some obscure example no one’s ever heard of before…
but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.
Like, when? What are some examples? Back up your bullshit.
The EU isn’t saying that violent photos are to be removed. The letter is asking for removal of disinformation and transparency into what gets removed.
Politico seems to have made up the part you’re complaining about.
Talking about spreading misinformation and media containing violence.
Limiting (islamo-)fascist propaganda is good. Freedom of speech is a social contract. You only get to keep your freedom of speech if you don’t use it to grossly infringe the rights of others.
“Islamo-fascist?” Is this 2002?
deleted by creator
Yeah but no one cares if it’s on 4chan. You expect it.
4chan also has like 1% of the user base
Maybe not, but those sites have way less of a userbase
Except it does matter if it’s on Twitter or on a lesser-known platform. Propaganda works when it is widely publicized and doesn’t work as well when it isn’t.
Twitter still has a responsibility before the law to deal with this kind of stuff and it doesn’t follow that.
This is some “quality” reporting. Nowhere does the EU says to remove “graphic violent images”, it’s only asking for transparency in what gets removed and the removal of disinformation and calls to violence.
Or what lol. Rich people are above the law.
Purging the images off social media will make it easier to deny that the atrocities ever happened. Keep them there in all their gory uglyness , perhaps put a spoiler tag over them to prevent someone with a feeble constitution from accidentally stumbling onto them and accidentally being triggered , but leave them there as evidence of the evil that happened.
It should be archived and put somewhere people can go and access it for historical and educational purposes, but that’s it. It’s horrible, and even knowing what’s happening is ALREADY bad enough.
There are already people denying it ever happened , this why it is needed.
A porn actress was made accountable for similar actions in less time and with more impact.
Any phrase, request or threat in the from of “do X or be subject to the rules” is inherently flawed.
Why not skip the asking part and go straight to the enforcing the rules part because they’re, you know; the fucking rules.
^ sue em n block em
If that is Net Revenue, I have some bad news for the EU. 🤣🤣🤣
I think you’re thinking of profits, which is revenue minus costs.
EU fines are a percentage of global revenue, which means all the money you make in any way, anywhere in the world, before subtracting any bullshit.
Which was $4.4 billion in 2022 and is estimated to be roughly $3 billion for 2023, so the maximum fine would be 180-264 million depending on which figure is used.
For comparison, the net loss (not profit) for 2022 for twitter was 270 million.deleted by creator
Per occasion, and the Commission can also create a moderation enforcement team specifically for Twitter, basically forcing Twitter to have moderation, and put the cost of said moderation on Twitter, as charges separate to the fine.
Think your stats are off? You can see a post in my history with more EU focused math. If yours is better let me know and I’ll update ;)
Oh shit, that’s awesome!!
The “brilliance” of Elon’s plan: he is impervious to EU fines because he doesn’t make any money.
He makes a lot ofmoney - he just loses more.
If that is gross revenue, I have bad news for the EU. “X” is, IIRC, operating in the red since Musk bought it.
Getting rid of misinformation is great.
Getting rid of accurately reported, gruesome images because of a government mandate flies in the face of the core principles of free speech. And it would cause real damage to the world.
Remember that it was only when the world actually saw images of the Nazi concentration camps that the world actually believed it. They’d heard about it for years, but it was largely ignored.
Getting rid of misinformation is great.
That is the goal. The OP article and especially the headline here is misleading.
This is what is in the original letter regarding violent images: „repurposed old images of unrelated armed conflicts or military footage that actually originated from video games“.
The issue is not violent images per se. The issue is misinformation through violent images that are unrelated to the current events.
and other gruesome images or propaganda that promote terrorist organizations.
Seems to me like this is a sly way to remove any videos where Hamas is successful.
Which is weird, because seeing those videos usually gives more support for Israel.
This whole law is fucked. Leave freedom of speech alone.
Freedom of speech is mostly an American concept. In most European states we „only“ have freedom of expression and opinion (a human right). Deliberately spreading propaganda, agitation and fake news is not covered by freedom of expression and opinion. On the contrary, it can be a criminal offense.
This is not the first time Musk thinks US laws apply to the whole world or that he is above the law of the countries his businesses operate in. A part of me hopes that he gets fined and then ignores the fine. He might just be stupid enough.
See? I called him stupid. That is an expression of my opinion. Using images of violence from 2010 and claiming that they are from 2023 is not an opinion.
I think he should just take X out of the EU and watch the uproar when EU citizens can’t get their fix.
Would really show who wears the pants in the relationship.
Using images of violence from 2010 and claiming that they are from 2023 is not an opinion.
I’m specifically referring to real videos accurately described in my previous comment.
EU citizens would grumble a bit, but then just switch over to other services like Treads and Mastodon. Many of our governments already did.
We aren’t loyal to a specific company, we use what is the most convenient and doesn’t spit right in our faces.
I think the EU would change its rules to appease its citizens who are addicted to X.
Same reason why the US would never ban tiktok. There would be an uproar of average people who don’t pay attention to these things wondering where their fix went.
I think the EU would change its rules to appease its citizens who are addicted to X.
It would not. The EU has funded Matrix/Element, Mastodon, even Lemmy has been developed using EU funding.
Facebook, 𝕏, Google, and similar US mega corps, can play by the rules or GTFO, the EU has alternatives.
You’re speaking against the propaganda fueled groupthink, that’s a bannable offense.
I respect that but the images presented to the public were selected to denounce and illustrate horrendous acts commited.
Here, I’d risk there is a very high risk/probability whatever may be leaked/posted is for pure shock value, with no intention to inform or contextualize.
Intent doesn’t matter. People should be allowed to document and post crimes committed against humanity
The pictures are old and don’t relate to what’s happening currently.
Also, what do you think the differences between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter are? Intent absolutely matters.
I’m not sure, but I believe this is only for social media sites. You can still document it, but social media isn’t the place. I assume you’d be able to link to that, but not to the images directly, but I’m just guessing.
Intent does matter. It is so inportant it is even relevant in courts of law.
You want the images of the barbarism raging in Israel as we speak to be known to the world and that is a good thing. People need to see the acts being commited there.
Yet twitter is not, in any way, the platform for it, as those same images are very easily twisted out of context and thrown out in a fashion that will only serve to further entrench extreme positions and used for sheer shock value.
These are human lives being laid to waste, not a social media circus for browny points.
Yeah, I see denouncing and illustrating terrorist attacks as a good thing.
Yes, which requires an unbiase position, supplying all possible information.
Nowadays, and even more when considering twitter, that is hardly the case.
The pictures are old and unrelated to what’s happening currently.
Which makes it even worse, I’d risk? If the said pictures are unrelated, why are those being pushed forward? Are we voluntarily trying to dumb ourselves?
I should have replied to the person you responded to, you are clearly on the same page I am.
Umm… why? Why are they censoring the truth?
This is how people don’t take war seriously. All they do is hear about it, but don’t see the gruesome reality.
They will downvote u to hell here.
Why are they censoring the truth?
Oh, that must be really embarrassing, but…
graphic images and disinformation
Maybe work on your reading comprehension to make sure you don’t embarrass yourself like that again.
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.
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.
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.
