8 ms·

>The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) has announced that it will stop publishing content on Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, from January 20th, 202

by NavinF 2y ago

>The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) has announced that it will stop publishing content on Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, from January 20th, 2025, when Donald Trump will officially become the 47th president of the United States. Wow that's about as political as it gets.

hedora 2y ago
Starting on that day, X will be run by the head of a department of the US federal government. As they point out, it’s turned into a site full of misinformation and political rhetoric, and Musk decides what’s acceptable. So, it’ll literally be a government-run propaganda site as of that date. Precedent says the press should not touch it. State run propaganda sites that target domestic audiences are illegal in the US, so, by law, Musk should be forced to divest, or stop operating X in the US. Of course, I’m not holding my breath. I don’t expect any member of the Trump administration to obey the law, and I’m sure plenty of people will defend them when they do break it.
- aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
- nickff 2y ago
  "Despite the name, it would not be a federal executive department, which would require an act of Congress to create, instead it will serve as an advisory body operating outside of government. According to CBS News, it may operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency#Functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Effic...
  - croes 2y ago
    Sounds more like a legal trick to create a department without following the proper laws.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    My understanding of Smith-Mundt (including its 2012 revision) is that being an "advisory body" would not meaningfully discharge the group's relationship with the US Government. Calling it a "department" certainly doesn't help the case.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I’m not sure that that makes it _better_, honestly.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  As the sister reply says, Elon isn't going to be the head of a federal department at all. DOGE will just be an "advisory" group (wink, wink). Of course, Trump will probably do whatever they advise him to do as far as cutting things, so it's not that much of a meaningful distinction, but it is a legal distinction which should avoid the legal issue you refer to (Xitter being run by a department head).
toofy 2y ago
it’s likely because twitter’s owner has turned extremely political and that makes them uncomfortable. particularly since he vocally is politically extreme, very vocally. they likely don’t want to put themselves or their work at the mercy of his extreme whims.
- constantlm 2y ago
  If you look at what happened at Twitter in the time before Musk bought it, one could argue that it's already been extremely political - just not on the side the EU would like.
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    We all remember when Jack Dorsey spent over $100m of his money and went around campaigning for a candidate..
  - toofy 2y ago
    its quite a bit different. Jack Dorsey wasn’t appointed to a government position, he also wasn’t nearly as vocally extreme as twitters current owner. also, it’s we don’t even have to speculate, the current owner has been very vocal that in addition to directly joining the current administration, he plans to be even more heavily involved in influencing politics around the world. i can absolutely understand why journalists would want to distance that piece of their toolkit from his platform. honestly, id be more skeptical of journalists who don’t move to other pastures.

by NavinF 2y ago

hedora 2y ago

Starting on that day, X will be run by the head of a department of the US federal government. As they point out, it’s turned into a site full of misinformation and political rhetoric, and Musk decides what’s acceptable. So, it’ll literally be a government-run propaganda site as of that date. Precedent says the press should not touch it. State run propaganda sites that target domestic audiences are illegal in the US, so, by law, Musk should be forced to divest, or stop operating X in the US. Of course, I’m not holding my breath. I don’t expect any member of the Trump administration to obey the law, and I’m sure plenty of people will defend them when they do break it.

aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
nickff 2y ago
"Despite the name, it would not be a federal executive department, which would require an act of Congress to create, instead it will serve as an advisory body operating outside of government. According to CBS News, it may operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency#Functions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Effic...
- croes 2y ago
  Sounds more like a legal trick to create a department without following the proper laws.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  My understanding of Smith-Mundt (including its 2012 revision) is that being an "advisory body" would not meaningfully discharge the group's relationship with the US Government. Calling it a "department" certainly doesn't help the case.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I’m not sure that that makes it _better_, honestly.
shiroiushi 2y ago
As the sister reply says, Elon isn't going to be the head of a federal department at all. DOGE will just be an "advisory" group (wink, wink). Of course, Trump will probably do whatever they advise him to do as far as cutting things, so it's not that much of a meaningful distinction, but it is a legal distinction which should avoid the legal issue you refer to (Xitter being run by a department head).

toofy 2y ago

it’s likely because twitter’s owner has turned extremely political and that makes them uncomfortable. particularly since he vocally is politically extreme, very vocally. they likely don’t want to put themselves or their work at the mercy of his extreme whims.

constantlm 2y ago
If you look at what happened at Twitter in the time before Musk bought it, one could argue that it's already been extremely political - just not on the side the EU would like.
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  We all remember when Jack Dorsey spent over $100m of his money and went around campaigning for a candidate..
- toofy 2y ago
  its quite a bit different. Jack Dorsey wasn’t appointed to a government position, he also wasn’t nearly as vocally extreme as twitters current owner. also, it’s we don’t even have to speculate, the current owner has been very vocal that in addition to directly joining the current administration, he plans to be even more heavily involved in influencing politics around the world. i can absolutely understand why journalists would want to distance that piece of their toolkit from his platform. honestly, id be more skeptical of journalists who don’t move to other pastures.