4 ms·

Why would we want powerful unelected government bureaucrats engaged in "sick burns?"

solardev 2y ago
The powerful unelected government bureaucrats are the only people protecting users from powerful unelected billionaire bureaucrats.
- ekianjo 2y ago
  You need protection from X? You can just not use it.
  - solardev 2y ago
    Unfortunately in the US many important agencies chose to use it to publish announcements, even for important public safety things. I don't have an account and am thus prevented from seeing what the agencies are saying. I would like to see regulations preventing governments from doing this.
    - clarionbell 2y ago
      You can just use their websites instead. But that does involve looking them up.
      - solardev 2y ago
        Unfortunately there is a lot that they either never publish on their website at all or do so very late.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Agree that there should be laws preventing public entities from using private social networks to exclusively distribute content. ("Also" is fine) It's lazy and unconscionable from a democracy perspective.
  - piva00 2y ago
    I can not use it as I do, the same with Facebook, but there are countless others taking disinformation spread on these platforms without bating an eye. Those countless others impact my life, they will vote, they will hate; stochastically it will affect me in some way even if I try to be as far away as I can from these platforms.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  The owner of Twitter is much richer than the CEO of Facebook. But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Yes I know this is about the EU. I’m more worried about a powerful government. Government has a “monopoly on violence”. Especially in the US between the electoral college, gerrymandering and the make up of Congress. It’s very much rule by the minority.
  - patcon 2y ago
    > But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Anyone in a failing democracy. No one gets to opt out of the collective effects of social media
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      There is nothing stopping you from not going to any social media. How do you propose the government regulate them?
  - solardev 2y ago
    And rule by billionaires or hedge funds is preferable? They don't need physical violence to enshittify societies, especially since so much of government already responds only to that class. They ARE the ruling minority and what's left of democratic government is the only (dying) check against them. Soon there won't be any checks left and you'll get your wish of direct rule by the rich.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      Name one billionaire whose products you are forced to use - outside of “natural monopolies” that are already regulated
      - solardev 2y ago
        This Twitter situation is one example. Many agencies/governments in the US use it as their primary or sole source of realtime public communications, even when they have email, texts, websites, etc. at their disposal. I would like that to be regulated (i.e. agencies required to post on public channels that don't require a proprietary login/account). I don't think that sort of regulation should extend to private entities, however, who should be able to communicate with their stakeholders however they please, even if I find it annoying.
- kypro 2y ago
  Users don't need protections from online services the majority of the planet neither use nor need to use. Multinational governments should scare people far more than whatever Twitter is doing these days.
  - solardev 2y ago
    What did the EU do that's so terrifying? MicroUSB?
  - piva00 2y ago
    > Multinational governments should scare people far more than whatever Twitter is doing these days. I will take potentially misguided trade/business regulations over a megaphone for spreading Nazi speech, thank you very much. It'd be great if you expanded this argument though, just for the sake of making the conversation more interesting on what exactly you see that's scary.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Or are they? Somehow I doubt powerful unelected government bureaucrats are immune to bribery or zealotry
  - solardev 2y ago
    The argument isn't that they're free from corruption and ideology, but that they're the only real check the public has against powerful monopolies and duopolies, etc. At a certain scale, competition breaks down and entrenched enshittification happens.* An average person has some (tiny) input in a representative democracy, where it's one person one vote (even if several layers removed, and only appointed by proxy etc.). They have no real say in a corporation that's usually one dollar one vote. * Yeah, it happens to governments too!
timeon 2y ago
This is lazy argument. Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries. Commission could be directly elected as well, but no country wants that because then national states would lose relevance - as the local governments would loose control.
- lakomen 2y ago
  If that were true, explain how Ursula von der Leyen, who never got elected into any EU positions became head of the European Commission
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    >> Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries. > If that were true, explain how Ursula von der Leyen, who never got elected into any EU positions became head of the European Commission Because each major European political party choose a candidate for Commission President before every European Parliament election. These are typically senior members of their party but there is no requirement that they nominate someone who currently holds a seat as an MEP. After the election is held the European Council (made up of heads of state of the member nations of the EU, all of the voting members are democratically elected) nominates the candidate of the party that secures the majority of seats (or one of the nominees from one on of the parties that are able to form a majority coalition). This candidate requires a majority vote of the newly elected European Parliament to be confirmed, and the Council must propose a new candidate if this first candidate does not secure the majority. So yes, it is currently the case that the President of the European Commission was never an MEP, but that is only half the story. She was selected by her party, nominated by a group of democratically elected EU heads of state who are responsible to voters of their respective countries, and confirmed by MEPs who are directly elected by the voters of each respective country that makes up the EU who are also responsible to their constituents. So that's how she got there and the process for getting there.
iterance 2y ago
It's a joke; in reality, X/Twitter got the outcome they wanted here, which is for the commission to rule they do not need to follow DMA supplemental guidelines which apply to gatekeeper businesses. The language in this announcement is completely pro forma, but taken out of context, sounds a bit like they're saying X/Twitter is bad at their advertising line of business.

The powerful unelected government bureaucrats are the only people protecting users from powerful unelected billionaire bureaucrats.

ekianjo 2y ago
You need protection from X? You can just not use it.
- solardev 2y ago
  Unfortunately in the US many important agencies chose to use it to publish announcements, even for important public safety things. I don't have an account and am thus prevented from seeing what the agencies are saying. I would like to see regulations preventing governments from doing this.
  - clarionbell 2y ago
    You can just use their websites instead. But that does involve looking them up.
    - solardev 2y ago
      Unfortunately there is a lot that they either never publish on their website at all or do so very late.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Agree that there should be laws preventing public entities from using private social networks to exclusively distribute content. ("Also" is fine) It's lazy and unconscionable from a democracy perspective.
- piva00 2y ago
  I can not use it as I do, the same with Facebook, but there are countless others taking disinformation spread on these platforms without bating an eye. Those countless others impact my life, they will vote, they will hate; stochastically it will affect me in some way even if I try to be as far away as I can from these platforms.
scarface_74 2y ago
The owner of Twitter is much richer than the CEO of Facebook. But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Yes I know this is about the EU. I’m more worried about a powerful government. Government has a “monopoly on violence”. Especially in the US between the electoral college, gerrymandering and the make up of Congress. It’s very much rule by the minority.
- patcon 2y ago
  > But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Anyone in a failing democracy. No one gets to opt out of the collective effects of social media
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    There is nothing stopping you from not going to any social media. How do you propose the government regulate them?
- solardev 2y ago
  And rule by billionaires or hedge funds is preferable? They don't need physical violence to enshittify societies, especially since so much of government already responds only to that class. They ARE the ruling minority and what's left of democratic government is the only (dying) check against them. Soon there won't be any checks left and you'll get your wish of direct rule by the rich.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Name one billionaire whose products you are forced to use - outside of “natural monopolies” that are already regulated
    - solardev 2y ago
      This Twitter situation is one example. Many agencies/governments in the US use it as their primary or sole source of realtime public communications, even when they have email, texts, websites, etc. at their disposal. I would like that to be regulated (i.e. agencies required to post on public channels that don't require a proprietary login/account). I don't think that sort of regulation should extend to private entities, however, who should be able to communicate with their stakeholders however they please, even if I find it annoying.
kypro 2y ago
Users don't need protections from online services the majority of the planet neither use nor need to use. Multinational governments should scare people far more than whatever Twitter is doing these days.
- solardev 2y ago
  What did the EU do that's so terrifying? MicroUSB?
- piva00 2y ago
  > Multinational governments should scare people far more than whatever Twitter is doing these days. I will take potentially misguided trade/business regulations over a megaphone for spreading Nazi speech, thank you very much. It'd be great if you expanded this argument though, just for the sake of making the conversation more interesting on what exactly you see that's scary.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Or are they? Somehow I doubt powerful unelected government bureaucrats are immune to bribery or zealotry
- solardev 2y ago
  The argument isn't that they're free from corruption and ideology, but that they're the only real check the public has against powerful monopolies and duopolies, etc. At a certain scale, competition breaks down and entrenched enshittification happens.* An average person has some (tiny) input in a representative democracy, where it's one person one vote (even if several layers removed, and only appointed by proxy etc.). They have no real say in a corporation that's usually one dollar one vote. * Yeah, it happens to governments too!

timeon 2y ago

This is lazy argument. Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries. Commission could be directly elected as well, but no country wants that because then national states would lose relevance - as the local governments would loose control.

lakomen 2y ago
If that were true, explain how Ursula von der Leyen, who never got elected into any EU positions became head of the European Commission
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  >> Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries. > If that were true, explain how Ursula von der Leyen, who never got elected into any EU positions became head of the European Commission Because each major European political party choose a candidate for Commission President before every European Parliament election. These are typically senior members of their party but there is no requirement that they nominate someone who currently holds a seat as an MEP. After the election is held the European Council (made up of heads of state of the member nations of the EU, all of the voting members are democratically elected) nominates the candidate of the party that secures the majority of seats (or one of the nominees from one on of the parties that are able to form a majority coalition). This candidate requires a majority vote of the newly elected European Parliament to be confirmed, and the Council must propose a new candidate if this first candidate does not secure the majority. So yes, it is currently the case that the President of the European Commission was never an MEP, but that is only half the story. She was selected by her party, nominated by a group of democratically elected EU heads of state who are responsible to voters of their respective countries, and confirmed by MEPs who are directly elected by the voters of each respective country that makes up the EU who are also responsible to their constituents. So that's how she got there and the process for getting there.

iterance 2y ago

It's a joke; in reality, X/Twitter got the outcome they wanted here, which is for the commission to rule they do not need to follow DMA supplemental guidelines which apply to gatekeeper businesses. The language in this announcement is completely pro forma, but taken out of context, sounds a bit like they're saying X/Twitter is bad at their advertising line of business.