5 ms·

To X. You know, X runs a website, X has some responsibility that what it presents on that website isn't actively harmful to democracy. Both a moral responsibili

To X. You know, X runs a website, X has some responsibility that what it presents on that website isn't actively harmful to democracy. Both a moral responsibility everywhere it operates, but a legal responsibility in many jurisdictions. And if they don't manage the content on the website themselves in many jurisdictions they open themselves up to fines and regulatory penalties. To be honest it's a pretty uniquely American view to say "Well yes, Elon owns the website, Elon runs the website, Elon personally intervenes to boost and endorse wild disinformation and conspiracy theories, but I just don't think you could possibly expect Elon to be held responsible for that".

nailer 3y ago
> X has some responsibility that what it presents on that website isn't actively harmful to democracy. Yes, that's why the team that pushed false narratives about the Biden laptop being "Russian disinformation" have been removed.
nvm0n2 3y ago
There's no general responsibility to not "present" things "actively harmful to democracy". And there's nothing uniquely American about that. I'm a European living in Europe and there's no such obligation or responsibility here either. Please don't insinuate there is. That's especially important because a significant chunk of the left no longer use the dictionary definition of the word democracy, so there isn't any chance of agreement on what it means. They seem to be using it either to mean the unelected institutions (courts, media, academia, civil service agencies) or sometimes to mean left wing policies. So if a conservative politician wins an election then that's a "threat to democracy", example: The AfD has achieved top municipal office for the first time in Sonneberg, Thuringia [...snip...] Green Party leader Ricarda Lang has interpreted the result as a warning to all supporters of democracy. [...snip...] Robert Sesselmann’s win is an alarm signal for democracy, said Martin Schirdewan, co-chairman of the Left Party https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-sonneberg-reaktionen-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-sonneberg-...
- SilverBirch 3y ago
  In the US there is specifically Section 230 - which legally absolves X of any liability from user generated content. That is unique to the US, in Europe, social media companies don't enjoy those same legal protections and field all sorts of requests for removal of content from government. As a European living in Europe, presumably you're aware of the passage of the Digital Services Act which puts legal requirements on large platforms to have systems in place to tackle disinformation.
  - unsupp0rted 3y ago
    Isn't Community Notes a system to tackle disinformation?
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    I'm aware of the DSA but fortunately am not required to follow it, being in one of the parts of Europe that's not a part of the EU. Section 230 doesn't have anything in it about being "actively harmful to democracy" so what's your point?
    - azernik 3y ago
      Mentioning Section 230 is to back up the "To be honest it's a pretty uniquely American view..." part of the GP comment.
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        It's really not that American. Americans didn't invent the concept of free speech, not by a long shot. The idea that it's somehow "un-European" to allow people to say things "harmful to democracy" is wrong legally and culturally, but the cultural affinity so many Europeans have for authoritarianism is exactly the reason Europe has no tech industry to speak of.
        azernik 3y ago
        Americans did not invent the concept of free speech, but they take it to an extreme that is extremely far out of the mainstream in Europe and always has been.
unsupp0rted 3y ago
> To be honest it's a pretty uniquely American view Interestingly, my comment was sitting at 3 points all day in European Time, and quickly got downvoted to -1 when America woke up this morning. So I agree there is some geographical/culture disparity in views on this topic.

nailer 3y ago

> X has some responsibility that what it presents on that website isn't actively harmful to democracy. Yes, that's why the team that pushed false narratives about the Biden laptop being "Russian disinformation" have been removed.

nvm0n2 3y ago

There's no general responsibility to not "present" things "actively harmful to democracy". And there's nothing uniquely American about that. I'm a European living in Europe and there's no such obligation or responsibility here either. Please don't insinuate there is. That's especially important because a significant chunk of the left no longer use the dictionary definition of the word democracy, so there isn't any chance of agreement on what it means. They seem to be using it either to mean the unelected institutions (courts, media, academia, civil service agencies) or sometimes to mean left wing policies. So if a conservative politician wins an election then that's a "threat to democracy", example: The AfD has achieved top municipal office for the first time in Sonneberg, Thuringia [...snip...] Green Party leader Ricarda Lang has interpreted the result as a warning to all supporters of democracy. [...snip...] Robert Sesselmann’s win is an alarm signal for democracy, said Martin Schirdewan, co-chairman of the Left Party https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-sonneberg-reaktionen-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/afd-sonneberg-...

SilverBirch 3y ago
In the US there is specifically Section 230 - which legally absolves X of any liability from user generated content. That is unique to the US, in Europe, social media companies don't enjoy those same legal protections and field all sorts of requests for removal of content from government. As a European living in Europe, presumably you're aware of the passage of the Digital Services Act which puts legal requirements on large platforms to have systems in place to tackle disinformation.
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  Isn't Community Notes a system to tackle disinformation?
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  I'm aware of the DSA but fortunately am not required to follow it, being in one of the parts of Europe that's not a part of the EU. Section 230 doesn't have anything in it about being "actively harmful to democracy" so what's your point?
  - azernik 3y ago
    Mentioning Section 230 is to back up the "To be honest it's a pretty uniquely American view..." part of the GP comment.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      It's really not that American. Americans didn't invent the concept of free speech, not by a long shot. The idea that it's somehow "un-European" to allow people to say things "harmful to democracy" is wrong legally and culturally, but the cultural affinity so many Europeans have for authoritarianism is exactly the reason Europe has no tech industry to speak of.
      - azernik 3y ago
        Americans did not invent the concept of free speech, but they take it to an extreme that is extremely far out of the mainstream in Europe and always has been.

unsupp0rted 3y ago

> To be honest it's a pretty uniquely American view Interestingly, my comment was sitting at 3 points all day in European Time, and quickly got downvoted to -1 when America woke up this morning. So I agree there is some geographical/culture disparity in views on this topic.