12 ms·

EU says X hosts "illegal content" connected to Israel-Hamas war

32 points by firstSpeaker 3y ago

jruohonen 3y ago
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843274
seydor 3y ago
EUrocrats doing the only job they can do (just check facebook ad reports. EU is constanty the top political spender in my country)
acedTrex 3y ago
The EU says a lot of things these days
- timeon 3y ago
  What does this comment brings to discussion?
hersko 3y ago
It's eye opening watching these massive government organizations going after the only platform that has open sourced their algorithm and has publicly revealed the massive governmental overreach in a social media company.
- chickchick 3y ago
  [dead]
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  I may be wrong, but wasn't published algorithm an older version compared to what they actually used at that time?
  - lm28469 3y ago
    The open sourced the shell of the logic, the important bits are hidden in models they did not release
- invalidname 3y ago
  They're going after mastodon? X demonstrates plainly the importance of regulation.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Why is regulation important?
    - invalidname 3y ago
      Because it has becomes a haven for racism and misinformation. That ultimately risks lives as misinformation has real-world consequences.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        When people say we're living in the information age it's not just some hokey platitude. The (amount, speed, distance) of information travel is something that's been thrust upon us and how we as a society deal with whatever happens as a consequence is something that's still in its infancy. The phrase "sticks and stones" was coined in 1844 when by all reasonable account words has a real tangible limit on how much they could follow and hurt you.
      - commandlinefan 3y ago
        Even if I agreed with you (that "racism and misinformation" were reasonable grounds for censorship), we've seen again and again, every single time, that when racism and misinformation become justification for censorship, the scope of "racism and misinformation" immediately grows to encompass whatever happens to be out of fashion right now - subject to change as styles and opinions change. In this case, it's grown to encompass evidence of war crimes.
        invalidname 3y ago
        It's a delicate balance. I'm very much for freedom of speech. But it's a problem in the modern age. People use it for effectively disabling speech by using a denial of service attack through buckets of misinformation. E.g. a ridiculously corrupt official just spewing misinformation about his rivals to avoid accountability. In the past the press would have been a barrier. Nixon tried to do that and failed. Misinformation can drown out legitimate information in this situation. We need safeguards to stop that. It's super easy to see when looking at pre-Musk Twitter and the current state of X. Old twitter had terrible people on it. No doubt. The volume is now unbearable. Those facts are proven statistically and are plain to see... Free speech is a tool that was invented in the age of the quill. We curtailed it in the past e.g. fire in a crowded theater, copyrights and defamation. It needs additional stopgaps for the modern age. I understand the distrust in government, mine sucks... So I get that. It's a choice between bad and worse... (edited to fix a couple of grammar mistakes)
- lm28469 3y ago
  You can create an open source website to hire hitmen and make $$$, it won't be any more legal than a closed source one
- sergiosgc 3y ago
  Read the letter. It has nothing to do with the algorithm. The EU Commission couldn't care less about the algorithm. It's about moderation procedures. It's about the absence of moderation, and the hellscape that fills that void.
  - throwaway45812 3y ago
    Isn't that exactly the same thing? They go after the platform that revealed the government overreach for not doing enough of it.
    - sergiosgc 3y ago
      Preventing the current state of disinformation on Twitter is hardly overreach.
      - throwaway45812 3y ago
        What will you do when enough users move to federated/decentralized platforms?
        sergiosgc 3y ago
        I expect the EU commission to direct their requests at the publisher. I expect publishers to respond. In short, business as usual. Federation of publishers doesn't change anything in that regard.
        petre 3y ago
        As far as the EU is concerned, TwitterX is the publisher. You can't possibly expect them to go after publishers of state sponsored propaganda or jihadi movement recruting content, it's unproductive.
        throwaway45812 3y ago
        You expect them to deal with tens of thousands of "publishers" (self-hosted users)?
Zee38484 3y ago
Perhaps subtitle from Politico article may add little context: > Beheadings, mass shootings and other images linked to the violence targeting Israel widely shared on Elon Musk’s social media network. This sort of gore is very illegal in EU. We do not have free speech in constitution, like US.
- jruohonen 3y ago
  > We do not have free speech in constitution, like US. Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter. Granted, these may not allow the expression of the things you mentioned. (And I am not sure whether the Constitution in the U.S. either allows inciting violence.)
  - kmlx 3y ago
    > Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter. not really. it's freedom of expression, but with major caveats: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
    - jruohonen 3y ago
      Of course, only a few of the rights (freedoms) are absolute (even in the US). Note also that the European Convention on Human Rights is not a 1:1 equivalent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
mqus 3y ago
Shouldn't they address Yaccarino, the actual CEO? I am aware that Musk still very much pulls the strings but if this is an official communication, official channels should be used? I'm not sure, the whole thing is just weird to me. But I do not actually disagree with the content. Content moderation is definitely an issue Musk tries to ignore.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  They know who the CEO really is.
- Zuider 3y ago
  Thierry Breton, the author of the letter, appears to have a personal grudge against Elon Musk, and has directed several aggressive ultimatums towards him such as, "In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules," "You can run but you can't hide" and "Our teams will be ready for enforcement." Breton is set to be the next EU Commissioner, succeeding Ursula Van Der Leyden.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I can get the frustration when someone whose job it is to enforce the law repeatedly comes up against someone in the public eye who openly flaunts their violation of the law wearing a shirt that says "make me" where other companies that have sane compliance departments just follow the law and course-correct when it's pointed out without the need for a big lawsuit. Big, "I shouldn't have to keep wasting my time on this" energy.
    - renlo 3y ago
      If such a person is "frustrated" then it sounds like they don't actually have the power they claim to have, or, they would just file that "big lawsuit". And, if this is really his job, and he has the power to litigate this, then certainly this is what he should be "wasting" his time on, should it not?
      - 3y ago
bastard_op 3y ago
I like the hypocrisy this linked to twitter talking about how bad twitter is. Go figure. Maybe we can all finally agree anything on twitter is bullshit and stop linking to anything there as real news now, please? TL:DR - Twitter Link, Didn't Read.
- toolz 3y ago
  if you care to see twitter replaced you would regularly go to twitter and make sure it doesn't have unique, value-add content and migrate that content to a platform you deem more worthy. finger wagging and boycotting a free-to-use website seems like nothing more than virtue signalling.
- lm28469 3y ago
  > "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" refers to a panel from a comic by Matt Bors in which a medieval peasant says "We should improve society somewhat" while a modern man, emerging from a well, replies, "Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent." The comic has been popularly used as a retort to people who imply one can't make complaints about capitalism or other aspects of social life while participating in those systems.
junaru 3y ago
What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news. If people saw the shear brutality and horror the only heads that would fly would be of the politicians and media that exploit conflicts for a profit. But we can't have that. EU made sure its 'illegal' and that people need to be 'protected' from viewing the fallout of our policies. Through out the history suppressing alternative points of view was never about protecting anything it was always about staying in power. This is no different.
- 14 3y ago
  It is the new age book burning. Forbidden information we can’t dare see for our own good.
- lm28469 3y ago
  > What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news. idk if I remember them all but I've seen: "hamas beheaded 40 babies!!!" > turns out it was 40 people, including babies, some decapitated "hamas use trebuchets to send dead bodies" > no proof besides a very low res pic "hamas dismember hostages by attaching them to two trucks and making them go opposite direction" > the picture was from a youtube thumbnail of a truck pulling duel, a body had been photoshoped on the rope between the two trucks "hamas put children in cages" > turns out the video was from Syria years ago "israel knew about it was going to be attacked but let it happen for political clout" > ok buddy but good luck proving that The real stories are awful enough, I don't even get why people come up with these fake ones, there are real pics/vids of beheading, dead kids, &c. Even the real graphic content is getting pushed away by fake ones which sound more outlandish, people want their dose of atrocities
  - archagon 3y ago
    I think it helps them justify any atrocities committed in the counterattack. Seeing a lot of jubilation on Reddit regarding the impending suffering of 2m civilians, and the “40 dead babies”, etc. are regularly brought up in defense of these feelings.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
Big Brother please tell exactly what I'm supposed to think. Is it a justified war of liberation and decolonization by the Palestinians or is it another senseless bout of terrorism against the peaceful state of Israel?
- timeon 3y ago
  This seems bit vague. Can you address specific thing from the article?
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Some of this might be evidence of war crimes that requires preservation?
- jruohonen 3y ago
  That's a fair point.
- lm28469 3y ago
  What you see on twitter is virtually never coming from first sources. Telegram would be a much better place to look at, and twitter isn't the internet archive. The problem isn't even the propaganda or the aftermath videos themselves, it's the fake ones and the misattributed ones
  - darkclouds 3y ago
    [dead]
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  The letter is about disinformation, not about evidence. I don't think anyone here would argue we should be deleting evidence.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    It's an (unintended) side effect. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65755517 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65755517
coolhand2120 3y ago
Time for the ministry of love!!!
exabrial 3y ago
Dear EU: I disagree about "hosting illegal content". What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments. Rather than covering up what a tragedy war is, how about we work to avoid it?
- lm28469 3y ago
  > What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments. If it was only about sharing graphic content I'd be on your side, but for every "uncomfortable" image you have 300 bot accounts spreading straight up fabricated images and information The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today Twitter is the last link of information before going on CNN &co, it's garbage tier in every aspect you can think of and there are dozens of better places to see uncomfortable and unfiltered content. People think they get the truth there but they're just one layer down in the thousands layer onion of misinformation
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    > The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today That is my takeaway as well. Every feature of the site is abused at scale to flood the zone with shit. It's like trying to have a discussion inside of a wind tunnel.
  - exabrial 3y ago
    > 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users I have no doubt a significant portion of that is true > content made to trigger However, this is what major news outlets do, usually at the request of a political party or faction
    - lm28469 3y ago
      > However, this is what major news outlets do, usually at the request of a political party or faction Of course that's why both should be avoided like the plague. Self proclaimed free thinkers who moved from fox/cnn to twitter.com/elonmusk and think the get the real truth™ are as dumb as it gets
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Is there a non-screenshot version available of this? The first point is about having clear policies and consistent/predictable application there-of. Thierry talks about a change regarding "latest changes in public interest policies"... does anyone have a link or information on what Twitter changed? The second point is about timely & objective takedowns of illegal content. Third is "proportionate and effective mitigation measures to tackle the risks to public security and civil discourse stemming from disinformation." I guess I need to dive in and read it, but the asks here make me feel the Digital Services Act demands a perfect utopian system. They are murky enough so that there is zero way I could ever be in the clear, feel confident; someone will always be accusing me of inconsistently applying my policies, or someone will always be able to say that this post or that post means I am not stemming disinformation actively enough. It's quite the turn, but I am interested & somewhat excited to see a world where these topics are up for discussion, where there's some light on how & where these happen. But I worry that nothing is good enough, that we could have councils of wisened elders (in a diverse array of languages, with express & direct access to local cultural experts & fact checkers) approving every post that - no matter how we try - we're going to do a pretty shabby job of a lot of this. The asks don't feel moderate; they feel infinite, and feel like the asks could only be satisfied in a fantastic Utopia where everything makes sense & everyone works together. But what I do like is that these important issues are up for discussion, that we have to have some discourse about them, that they don't get to remain invisible implicit decisions within medium & large social media organizations forever.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] So many posts about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37839524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37839524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37837053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37837053
sebow 3y ago
Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean? If the EU actually cared about this topic, they would hire a bunch of people to use the already_existing community notes feature. Of course this is implying they care about the topic, which is probably irrelevant to them. They just want control of information because both sides in this war act scummy and inhumane. Of course if they were to do this they would get challenged by every other user who wants to "fact check", which rightfully dilutes their appearance of authority of truth. It's 2023 and people still don't understand the premise of government censorship. Guess what: deleting misinformation is still censorship, it does not attack the issue itself; it only probably antagonizes the people who put said (false or not) information, and 'downgrades' the filter of the people who are actually interested in the truth. The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. We've been over this with covid already. You don't even have to be an optimist to notice that, most often than not, truth eventually comes out. And what's more interesting is that the more open and free a medium of information/discussion is, the >faster< it gets out. This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. Fabricating things not rooted in reality is harder and impossible to maintain.
- test098 3y ago
  > Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean? EU regulators. > The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. > This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. uh nope: "The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities." - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-remove-misinformation-that-leads-to-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re...
  - sebow 3y ago
    > "The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities." >- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re... I'm aware of those frankly tragic episodes. But ask yourself this: is the problem the fact that simply misinfo was put on FB or the fact that there wasn't enough counter-balancing information available? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or downplay the situation, but the fact is that a lot of places suffer "from misinfo" because the only info available is misinfo. The human mind is inherently a curious mind. And as i've stated in my first comment, people tend to follow info from trains of thought that make sense(are logical)[yes, even if we're talking about religion/etc.): the contents of the information matters, how cohesive it is, how it attacks the false claims. I would argue that a big lie does not even need a "big truth" to be debunked, it only needs a well-thought question to instill the skepticism required for the lie to not be taken as plain truth. Closing thoughts: in third-world regions: the ones you've mentioned, russia, "china"(on the freedom of information/liberty front), etc. the issue of misinformation is not really that misinformation exists; but actually that it is mainly the only information that exists, and there's not enough balancing "truth"/skepticism. You might think i'm silly or that i'm arguing for misinfo(that wouldn't suit me by the way), but I live in an ex-communist country: I've had some relative contact on how the centralized government used to push actual misinformation and how people took it as blind truth. After the said government(s) failed, people usually became more skeptical about all kinds of information(a good thing to do). Those people are the generation of my parents for example, a dying breed, and it should not come as a surprise that every subsequent generation that came after and took all news as "facts" became usually dumber, less rational, and more naive.
hnburnsy 3y ago
Here is what Community Notes said, feels like this is a good thing to address moderation issues... ------------- Thank you to all the contributors who’ve been active over the last few days, helping to keep people on X informed. We wanted to share some of the impact of your work: • In just three days, you wrote notes seen tens of millions of times. • More than 500 unique notes relating to the attacks and unfolding events are being shown on X. • Because of the new "notes on media" feature, these notes display on an additional 3000+ posts. This number grows automatically if the relevant images and video are re-used in new posts. • Notes related to the attacks cover a wide range of topics from out-of-context war footage, to unrelated or outdated protest/celebration videos, to fake videos made with game simulators, to claims of US funding related to conflict, to claims about specific events having taken place in the conflict, and more. https://twitter.com/CommunityNotes/status/1711824156134629399 https://twitter.com/CommunityNotes/status/171182415613462939...
olivierduval 3y ago
I'm wondering if we're talking about the right thing... T. Breton is talking about EUROPE's REGULATION, not freedom of speech! And it's his job... So: * if you live in Europe (so are submitted to Europe's Laws): - either you're European and if you dont like European Laws you need to vote for people with different opinions, - or you're not European and then... well... leave Europe * if you dont live in Europe then... all this doesn't matter to you! You won't be impacted so... why commenting and trying to explain what is wrong about European Laws ?
Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
As somebody who has the misfortune to be living in Russia in this time, I have a very clear opinion on internet censorship and demands to prevent 'misinformation': kill it with fire. Once the government gets to decide what's true and what's not, your country is no longer free. If the government wants to fight misinformation, it should disclose more information. If the government has an ability to silence anyone, this ability will be used to silence information harmful to the government.
- jdjdjdhhd 3y ago
  It's very rare to see a comment like yours... Thank you.

32 points by firstSpeaker 3y ago

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843274

EUrocrats doing the only job they can do (just check facebook ad reports. EU is constanty the top political spender in my country)

acedTrex 3y ago

The EU says a lot of things these days

timeon 3y ago
What does this comment brings to discussion?

hersko 3y ago

It's eye opening watching these massive government organizations going after the only platform that has open sourced their algorithm and has publicly revealed the massive governmental overreach in a social media company.

chickchick 3y ago
[dead]
Moldoteck 3y ago
I may be wrong, but wasn't published algorithm an older version compared to what they actually used at that time?
- lm28469 3y ago
  The open sourced the shell of the logic, the important bits are hidden in models they did not release
invalidname 3y ago
They're going after mastodon? X demonstrates plainly the importance of regulation.
- nradov 3y ago
  Why is regulation important?
  - invalidname 3y ago
    Because it has becomes a haven for racism and misinformation. That ultimately risks lives as misinformation has real-world consequences.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      When people say we're living in the information age it's not just some hokey platitude. The (amount, speed, distance) of information travel is something that's been thrust upon us and how we as a society deal with whatever happens as a consequence is something that's still in its infancy. The phrase "sticks and stones" was coined in 1844 when by all reasonable account words has a real tangible limit on how much they could follow and hurt you.
    - commandlinefan 3y ago
      Even if I agreed with you (that "racism and misinformation" were reasonable grounds for censorship), we've seen again and again, every single time, that when racism and misinformation become justification for censorship, the scope of "racism and misinformation" immediately grows to encompass whatever happens to be out of fashion right now - subject to change as styles and opinions change. In this case, it's grown to encompass evidence of war crimes.
      - invalidname 3y ago
        It's a delicate balance. I'm very much for freedom of speech. But it's a problem in the modern age. People use it for effectively disabling speech by using a denial of service attack through buckets of misinformation. E.g. a ridiculously corrupt official just spewing misinformation about his rivals to avoid accountability. In the past the press would have been a barrier. Nixon tried to do that and failed. Misinformation can drown out legitimate information in this situation. We need safeguards to stop that. It's super easy to see when looking at pre-Musk Twitter and the current state of X. Old twitter had terrible people on it. No doubt. The volume is now unbearable. Those facts are proven statistically and are plain to see... Free speech is a tool that was invented in the age of the quill. We curtailed it in the past e.g. fire in a crowded theater, copyrights and defamation. It needs additional stopgaps for the modern age. I understand the distrust in government, mine sucks... So I get that. It's a choice between bad and worse... (edited to fix a couple of grammar mistakes)
lm28469 3y ago
You can create an open source website to hire hitmen and make $$$, it won't be any more legal than a closed source one
sergiosgc 3y ago
Read the letter. It has nothing to do with the algorithm. The EU Commission couldn't care less about the algorithm. It's about moderation procedures. It's about the absence of moderation, and the hellscape that fills that void.
- throwaway45812 3y ago
  Isn't that exactly the same thing? They go after the platform that revealed the government overreach for not doing enough of it.
  - sergiosgc 3y ago
    Preventing the current state of disinformation on Twitter is hardly overreach.
    - throwaway45812 3y ago
      What will you do when enough users move to federated/decentralized platforms?
      - sergiosgc 3y ago
        I expect the EU commission to direct their requests at the publisher. I expect publishers to respond. In short, business as usual. Federation of publishers doesn't change anything in that regard.
        petre 3y ago
        As far as the EU is concerned, TwitterX is the publisher. You can't possibly expect them to go after publishers of state sponsored propaganda or jihadi movement recruting content, it's unproductive.
        throwaway45812 3y ago
        You expect them to deal with tens of thousands of "publishers" (self-hosted users)?

Zee38484 3y ago

Perhaps subtitle from Politico article may add little context: > Beheadings, mass shootings and other images linked to the violence targeting Israel widely shared on Elon Musk’s social media network. This sort of gore is very illegal in EU. We do not have free speech in constitution, like US.

jruohonen 3y ago
> We do not have free speech in constitution, like US. Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter. Granted, these may not allow the expression of the things you mentioned. (And I am not sure whether the Constitution in the U.S. either allows inciting violence.)
- kmlx 3y ago
  > Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter. not really. it's freedom of expression, but with major caveats: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
  - jruohonen 3y ago
    Of course, only a few of the rights (freedoms) are absolute (even in the US). Note also that the European Convention on Human Rights is not a 1:1 equivalent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

mqus 3y ago

Shouldn't they address Yaccarino, the actual CEO? I am aware that Musk still very much pulls the strings but if this is an official communication, official channels should be used? I'm not sure, the whole thing is just weird to me. But I do not actually disagree with the content. Content moderation is definitely an issue Musk tries to ignore.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
They know who the CEO really is.
Zuider 3y ago
Thierry Breton, the author of the letter, appears to have a personal grudge against Elon Musk, and has directed several aggressive ultimatums towards him such as, "In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules," "You can run but you can't hide" and "Our teams will be ready for enforcement." Breton is set to be the next EU Commissioner, succeeding Ursula Van Der Leyden.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I can get the frustration when someone whose job it is to enforce the law repeatedly comes up against someone in the public eye who openly flaunts their violation of the law wearing a shirt that says "make me" where other companies that have sane compliance departments just follow the law and course-correct when it's pointed out without the need for a big lawsuit. Big, "I shouldn't have to keep wasting my time on this" energy.
  - renlo 3y ago
    If such a person is "frustrated" then it sounds like they don't actually have the power they claim to have, or, they would just file that "big lawsuit". And, if this is really his job, and he has the power to litigate this, then certainly this is what he should be "wasting" his time on, should it not?
    - 3y ago

bastard_op 3y ago

I like the hypocrisy this linked to twitter talking about how bad twitter is. Go figure. Maybe we can all finally agree anything on twitter is bullshit and stop linking to anything there as real news now, please? TL:DR - Twitter Link, Didn't Read.

toolz 3y ago
if you care to see twitter replaced you would regularly go to twitter and make sure it doesn't have unique, value-add content and migrate that content to a platform you deem more worthy. finger wagging and boycotting a free-to-use website seems like nothing more than virtue signalling.
lm28469 3y ago
> "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" refers to a panel from a comic by Matt Bors in which a medieval peasant says "We should improve society somewhat" while a modern man, emerging from a well, replies, "Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent." The comic has been popularly used as a retort to people who imply one can't make complaints about capitalism or other aspects of social life while participating in those systems.

junaru 3y ago

What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news. If people saw the shear brutality and horror the only heads that would fly would be of the politicians and media that exploit conflicts for a profit. But we can't have that. EU made sure its 'illegal' and that people need to be 'protected' from viewing the fallout of our policies. Through out the history suppressing alternative points of view was never about protecting anything it was always about staying in power. This is no different.

14 3y ago
It is the new age book burning. Forbidden information we can’t dare see for our own good.
lm28469 3y ago
> What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news. idk if I remember them all but I've seen: "hamas beheaded 40 babies!!!" > turns out it was 40 people, including babies, some decapitated "hamas use trebuchets to send dead bodies" > no proof besides a very low res pic "hamas dismember hostages by attaching them to two trucks and making them go opposite direction" > the picture was from a youtube thumbnail of a truck pulling duel, a body had been photoshoped on the rope between the two trucks "hamas put children in cages" > turns out the video was from Syria years ago "israel knew about it was going to be attacked but let it happen for political clout" > ok buddy but good luck proving that The real stories are awful enough, I don't even get why people come up with these fake ones, there are real pics/vids of beheading, dead kids, &c. Even the real graphic content is getting pushed away by fake ones which sound more outlandish, people want their dose of atrocities
- archagon 3y ago
  I think it helps them justify any atrocities committed in the counterattack. Seeing a lot of jubilation on Reddit regarding the impending suffering of 2m civilians, and the “40 dead babies”, etc. are regularly brought up in defense of these feelings.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago

Big Brother please tell exactly what I'm supposed to think. Is it a justified war of liberation and decolonization by the Palestinians or is it another senseless bout of terrorism against the peaceful state of Israel?

timeon 3y ago
This seems bit vague. Can you address specific thing from the article?

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

Some of this might be evidence of war crimes that requires preservation?

jruohonen 3y ago
That's a fair point.
lm28469 3y ago
What you see on twitter is virtually never coming from first sources. Telegram would be a much better place to look at, and twitter isn't the internet archive. The problem isn't even the propaganda or the aftermath videos themselves, it's the fake ones and the misattributed ones
- darkclouds 3y ago
  [dead]
sdfghswe 3y ago
The letter is about disinformation, not about evidence. I don't think anyone here would argue we should be deleting evidence.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  It's an (unintended) side effect. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65755517 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65755517

coolhand2120 3y ago

Time for the ministry of love!!!

exabrial 3y ago

Dear EU: I disagree about "hosting illegal content". What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments. Rather than covering up what a tragedy war is, how about we work to avoid it?

lm28469 3y ago
> What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments. If it was only about sharing graphic content I'd be on your side, but for every "uncomfortable" image you have 300 bot accounts spreading straight up fabricated images and information The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today Twitter is the last link of information before going on CNN &co, it's garbage tier in every aspect you can think of and there are dozens of better places to see uncomfortable and unfiltered content. People think they get the truth there but they're just one layer down in the thousands layer onion of misinformation
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  > The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today That is my takeaway as well. Every feature of the site is abused at scale to flood the zone with shit. It's like trying to have a discussion inside of a wind tunnel.
- exabrial 3y ago
  > 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users I have no doubt a significant portion of that is true > content made to trigger However, this is what major news outlets do, usually at the request of a political party or faction
  - lm28469 3y ago
    > However, this is what major news outlets do, usually at the request of a political party or faction Of course that's why both should be avoided like the plague. Self proclaimed free thinkers who moved from fox/cnn to twitter.com/elonmusk and think the get the real truth™ are as dumb as it gets

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

Is there a non-screenshot version available of this? The first point is about having clear policies and consistent/predictable application there-of. Thierry talks about a change regarding "latest changes in public interest policies"... does anyone have a link or information on what Twitter changed? The second point is about timely & objective takedowns of illegal content. Third is "proportionate and effective mitigation measures to tackle the risks to public security and civil discourse stemming from disinformation." I guess I need to dive in and read it, but the asks here make me feel the Digital Services Act demands a perfect utopian system. They are murky enough so that there is zero way I could ever be in the clear, feel confident; someone will always be accusing me of inconsistently applying my policies, or someone will always be able to say that this post or that post means I am not stemming disinformation actively enough. It's quite the turn, but I am interested & somewhat excited to see a world where these topics are up for discussion, where there's some light on how & where these happen. But I worry that nothing is good enough, that we could have councils of wisened elders (in a diverse array of languages, with express & direct access to local cultural experts & fact checkers) approving every post that - no matter how we try - we're going to do a pretty shabby job of a lot of this. The asks don't feel moderate; they feel infinite, and feel like the asks could only be satisfied in a fantastic Utopia where everything makes sense & everyone works together. But what I do like is that these important issues are up for discussion, that we have to have some discourse about them, that they don't get to remain invisible implicit decisions within medium & large social media organizations forever.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] So many posts about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37839524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37839524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37837053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37837053

sebow 3y ago

Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean? If the EU actually cared about this topic, they would hire a bunch of people to use the already_existing community notes feature. Of course this is implying they care about the topic, which is probably irrelevant to them. They just want control of information because both sides in this war act scummy and inhumane. Of course if they were to do this they would get challenged by every other user who wants to "fact check", which rightfully dilutes their appearance of authority of truth. It's 2023 and people still don't understand the premise of government censorship. Guess what: deleting misinformation is still censorship, it does not attack the issue itself; it only probably antagonizes the people who put said (false or not) information, and 'downgrades' the filter of the people who are actually interested in the truth. The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. We've been over this with covid already. You don't even have to be an optimist to notice that, most often than not, truth eventually comes out. And what's more interesting is that the more open and free a medium of information/discussion is, the >faster< it gets out. This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. Fabricating things not rooted in reality is harder and impossible to maintain.

test098 3y ago
> Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean? EU regulators. > The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. > This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. uh nope: "The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities." - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-remove-misinformation-that-leads-to-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re...
- sebow 3y ago
  > "The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities." >- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re... I'm aware of those frankly tragic episodes. But ask yourself this: is the problem the fact that simply misinfo was put on FB or the fact that there wasn't enough counter-balancing information available? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or downplay the situation, but the fact is that a lot of places suffer "from misinfo" because the only info available is misinfo. The human mind is inherently a curious mind. And as i've stated in my first comment, people tend to follow info from trains of thought that make sense(are logical)[yes, even if we're talking about religion/etc.): the contents of the information matters, how cohesive it is, how it attacks the false claims. I would argue that a big lie does not even need a "big truth" to be debunked, it only needs a well-thought question to instill the skepticism required for the lie to not be taken as plain truth. Closing thoughts: in third-world regions: the ones you've mentioned, russia, "china"(on the freedom of information/liberty front), etc. the issue of misinformation is not really that misinformation exists; but actually that it is mainly the only information that exists, and there's not enough balancing "truth"/skepticism. You might think i'm silly or that i'm arguing for misinfo(that wouldn't suit me by the way), but I live in an ex-communist country: I've had some relative contact on how the centralized government used to push actual misinformation and how people took it as blind truth. After the said government(s) failed, people usually became more skeptical about all kinds of information(a good thing to do). Those people are the generation of my parents for example, a dying breed, and it should not come as a surprise that every subsequent generation that came after and took all news as "facts" became usually dumber, less rational, and more naive.

hnburnsy 3y ago

Here is what Community Notes said, feels like this is a good thing to address moderation issues... ------------- Thank you to all the contributors who’ve been active over the last few days, helping to keep people on X informed. We wanted to share some of the impact of your work: • In just three days, you wrote notes seen tens of millions of times. • More than 500 unique notes relating to the attacks and unfolding events are being shown on X. • Because of the new "notes on media" feature, these notes display on an additional 3000+ posts. This number grows automatically if the relevant images and video are re-used in new posts. • Notes related to the attacks cover a wide range of topics from out-of-context war footage, to unrelated or outdated protest/celebration videos, to fake videos made with game simulators, to claims of US funding related to conflict, to claims about specific events having taken place in the conflict, and more. https://twitter.com/CommunityNotes/status/1711824156134629399 https://twitter.com/CommunityNotes/status/171182415613462939...

olivierduval 3y ago

I'm wondering if we're talking about the right thing... T. Breton is talking about EUROPE's REGULATION, not freedom of speech! And it's his job... So: * if you live in Europe (so are submitted to Europe's Laws): - either you're European and if you dont like European Laws you need to vote for people with different opinions, - or you're not European and then... well... leave Europe * if you dont live in Europe then... all this doesn't matter to you! You won't be impacted so... why commenting and trying to explain what is wrong about European Laws ?

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago

As somebody who has the misfortune to be living in Russia in this time, I have a very clear opinion on internet censorship and demands to prevent 'misinformation': kill it with fire. Once the government gets to decide what's true and what's not, your country is no longer free. If the government wants to fight misinformation, it should disclose more information. If the government has an ability to silence anyone, this ability will be used to silence information harmful to the government.

jdjdjdhhd 3y ago
It's very rare to see a comment like yours... Thank you.