4 ms·

The DSA violation was news in 2024 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/eu-says-elon-musks-paid-verification-deceives-x-users-threatens-big-fines/ https

by rcpt 2y ago

The DSA violation was news in 2024 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/eu-says-elon-musks-paid-verification-deceives-x-users-threatens-big-fines/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/eu-says-elon-mus... And the EU is right. Elons blue check boosting logic absolutely violated those laws. Other companies played by the rules and made their systems DSA compliant. Elon did not, now he needs to pay.

marris 2y ago
I am not familiar with the DSA. 1. Are companies permitted to charge for badges under DSA? 2. Is there an example of another social media that EU officials have identified as being compliant with DSA?
- immibis 2y ago
  You can read the text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng If English isn't your native language, that's okay - these are translated into every European language and you can select a translation here. Article 25, clause 1: > Providers of online platforms shall not design, organise or operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or manipulates the recipients of their service or in a way that otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of the recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions. These EU regulations tend to specify policies, not mechanisms to achieve them. Mechanisms to enforce the policy, however, are specified. They are written like that precisely so you won't try to weasel your way around a requirement. If they had said "verified badges may not be sold" then you would try to say "this isn't a verified badge but a they-paid-us badge." By wording it vaguely, it cannot be weaseled. And indeed, it is a they-paid-us badge... but it's designed to look identical to the verified badge, on purpose, because Elon knew verified badges were something people wanted, and people wanted them because they were a status symbol, and they were a status symbol because they indicated your account was in some sense more trustworthy than average. And Elon knew that. I don't know whether people still see the badges that way today. Probably not, because all the sane people deleted their accounts and don't care. But it was the case, when the badges were introduced, that they were designed to trick people who didn't know they were now pay badges. You might think everyone knew that, but that's just because everyone in your bubble knew that because they're very online people. Would your grandmother know it?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >They are written like that precisely so you won't try to weasel your way around a requirement. If they had said "verified badges may not be sold" then you would try to say "this isn't a verified badge but a they-paid-us badge." By wording it vaguely, it cannot be weaseled. It also means enterprising prosecutors and regulators can use it as a cudgel against their opponents. As others have mentioned, the checkmark already meant very little when it came to whether the poster was trustworthy or not. It's like fining Chrome and Firefox for accepting letsencrypt certificates, because previously there was a $10 cost to having a lock appear on your site, and letsencrypt making it free misleads users.
    - Incipient 2y ago
      It's the age old argument of "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law". Neither approach is perfect. Personally I prefer the spirit approach as companies will generally do more harm than regulators given some rope.
    - immibis 2y ago
      It does. I don't think this example is as good as you think, though. You used to have to give out your full legal name and address and have them verified to get an SSL certificate and the lock icon. When any random website could get the lock icon, this did indeed lead to more people typing their passwords into phishing sites, thinking they were real because they had the lock icon, and this was indeed a real problem. They could have chosen to only show the lock for EV certificates, and show something else, or no icon, for DV certificates, but instead they made a choice that was misleading. Google probably should have been fined for that, but not very much, because it wasn't foreseen. I think Mozilla was still a non-profit at the time.
nradov 2y ago
The DSA ruling was wrong. The blue checkmark never indicated trustworthy sources of information. Even under previous Twitter management, verified accounts routinely posted misinformation and disinformation. Thierry Breton is either an idiot or lying to push a political narrative.
- seivan 2y ago
  [dead]
- addaon 2y ago
  The trustworthy information that blue check marks indicated was not that the /contents of the message/ were objectively trustworthy, but that /a specific person was willing to be associated with the contents of the message/. That’s what was lost.
  - josteink 2y ago
    Are you saying you think the semantics of that is anywhere near worth a billion dollar fine? When the changes were clearly communicated, and reported on by the press! In that case, what about the CSAM problem on the Meta-owned platforms? How many billions should that be?
    - slowmovintarget 2y ago
      That's right. This is not about the blue check marks at all. It's about X not censoring information to the EU's tastes, and them finding something... anything, to punish Elon for it.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        The process for this began before the inauguration right?
        slowmovintarget 2y ago
tacticalturtle 2y ago
Am I misremembering history? > Blue checkmarks "used to mean trustworthy sources of information," Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said I thought the blue check mark always indicated that account name on Twitter matched the person behind the account. That’s it. They eventually expanded that to include non-famous people. Kyrie Irving (an NBA player known for conspiracies like flat earthism) had a blue check - no one would ever mistake him for a trustworthy source of information.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  The only thing blue checkmark meant was that you knew somebody at twitter

by rcpt 2y ago

marris 2y ago

I am not familiar with the DSA. 1. Are companies permitted to charge for badges under DSA? 2. Is there an example of another social media that EU officials have identified as being compliant with DSA?

immibis 2y ago
You can read the text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng If English isn't your native language, that's okay - these are translated into every European language and you can select a translation here. Article 25, clause 1: > Providers of online platforms shall not design, organise or operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or manipulates the recipients of their service or in a way that otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of the recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions. These EU regulations tend to specify policies, not mechanisms to achieve them. Mechanisms to enforce the policy, however, are specified. They are written like that precisely so you won't try to weasel your way around a requirement. If they had said "verified badges may not be sold" then you would try to say "this isn't a verified badge but a they-paid-us badge." By wording it vaguely, it cannot be weaseled. And indeed, it is a they-paid-us badge... but it's designed to look identical to the verified badge, on purpose, because Elon knew verified badges were something people wanted, and people wanted them because they were a status symbol, and they were a status symbol because they indicated your account was in some sense more trustworthy than average. And Elon knew that. I don't know whether people still see the badges that way today. Probably not, because all the sane people deleted their accounts and don't care. But it was the case, when the badges were introduced, that they were designed to trick people who didn't know they were now pay badges. You might think everyone knew that, but that's just because everyone in your bubble knew that because they're very online people. Would your grandmother know it?
- gruez 2y ago
  >They are written like that precisely so you won't try to weasel your way around a requirement. If they had said "verified badges may not be sold" then you would try to say "this isn't a verified badge but a they-paid-us badge." By wording it vaguely, it cannot be weaseled. It also means enterprising prosecutors and regulators can use it as a cudgel against their opponents. As others have mentioned, the checkmark already meant very little when it came to whether the poster was trustworthy or not. It's like fining Chrome and Firefox for accepting letsencrypt certificates, because previously there was a $10 cost to having a lock appear on your site, and letsencrypt making it free misleads users.
  - Incipient 2y ago
    It's the age old argument of "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law". Neither approach is perfect. Personally I prefer the spirit approach as companies will generally do more harm than regulators given some rope.
  - immibis 2y ago
    It does. I don't think this example is as good as you think, though. You used to have to give out your full legal name and address and have them verified to get an SSL certificate and the lock icon. When any random website could get the lock icon, this did indeed lead to more people typing their passwords into phishing sites, thinking they were real because they had the lock icon, and this was indeed a real problem. They could have chosen to only show the lock for EV certificates, and show something else, or no icon, for DV certificates, but instead they made a choice that was misleading. Google probably should have been fined for that, but not very much, because it wasn't foreseen. I think Mozilla was still a non-profit at the time.

nradov 2y ago

The DSA ruling was wrong. The blue checkmark never indicated trustworthy sources of information. Even under previous Twitter management, verified accounts routinely posted misinformation and disinformation. Thierry Breton is either an idiot or lying to push a political narrative.

seivan 2y ago
[dead]
addaon 2y ago
The trustworthy information that blue check marks indicated was not that the /contents of the message/ were objectively trustworthy, but that /a specific person was willing to be associated with the contents of the message/. That’s what was lost.
- josteink 2y ago
  Are you saying you think the semantics of that is anywhere near worth a billion dollar fine? When the changes were clearly communicated, and reported on by the press! In that case, what about the CSAM problem on the Meta-owned platforms? How many billions should that be?
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    That's right. This is not about the blue check marks at all. It's about X not censoring information to the EU's tastes, and them finding something... anything, to punish Elon for it.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      The process for this began before the inauguration right?
      - slowmovintarget 2y ago

tacticalturtle 2y ago

Am I misremembering history? > Blue checkmarks "used to mean trustworthy sources of information," Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said I thought the blue check mark always indicated that account name on Twitter matched the person behind the account. That’s it. They eventually expanded that to include non-famous people. Kyrie Irving (an NBA player known for conspiracies like flat earthism) had a blue check - no one would ever mistake him for a trustworthy source of information.

TiredOfLife 2y ago
The only thing blue checkmark meant was that you knew somebody at twitter