4 ms·

The reason of the fine is, as stated by the article: EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified acco

The reason of the fine is, as stated by the article: EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it

charcircuit 11mo ago
And it says that the investigation in regards to handle how they handle illegal content (speech they don't like) is still ongoing. So the potential fines over free speech are still upcoming.
- perching_aix 11mo ago
  Protected speech is what's covered by "free speech", not all speech. If you disagree with what specific areas of speech they find illegal, say so, be clear about it, rather than presupposing your views in your claims in an emotion evoking fashion (e.g. "speech they don't like"). It's extremely tiring to decipher takes like these and they're everywhere recently. It's supposed to be convincing, yet to read it without finding it jarring, I'd already need to agree with you. Makes no sense!
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    There is preexisting context that the US and EU disagree about what speech should be allowed.
    - perching_aix 11mo ago
      That does exist, yes. And even in the US, there are categories of speech which are handled differently. This is why mentions of "free speech" are inherently red herrings to me. It's an idea, a mirage, and a rather absolute one at that, especially under certain interpretations. It is something to get people ideologically motivated by and then used in my opinion. To me, it bears little difference to run of the mill marketing speak about agile and scrum, for example. Just like with code, the difference between idea and implementation is ever-shifting and never nil, sometimes intentionally so. It is not helped by how someone can read the same situation very differently, which is the whole premise behind the "speech that you don't like" narrative in the first place, in the face of which loaded assertions fare really quite poorly: https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartment/ https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartmen...
zb3 11mo ago
[flagged]
- Timon3 11mo ago
  This complaint can be valid if a) you're not guilty of the "official reason", or b) competitors are guilty of the same things and are not getting penalized. Can you show that either is true? Regarding b), there have been many, many articles posted here which show competitors being fined for various rule violations, so concrete examples would be great.
  - zb3 11mo ago
    Or c) where you know that these requirements would impact your enemy more than others, or make it quit EU
    - Timon3 11mo ago
      Sure, that's theoretically possible. Since the violations listed by GP: > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. IMO don't fall under this & you didn't argue that they did, I didn't list this possibility. Which of the listed violations do you think falls under that, and which ones don't?
pessimizer 11mo ago
> Elon Musk's social media company X was fined 120 million euros ($140 million) by EU tech regulators on Friday for breaching EU online content rules This is what the article said. [edit, mostly wrong: "You gave the reason that was used for an investigation of TikTok, and I don't know where you got the blue check thing from."] > I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it edit: I got a bad load that cut off the end. What was actually said, however was, > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. Italics mine. The first line however, is about breaching "online content rules."

charcircuit 11mo ago

And it says that the investigation in regards to handle how they handle illegal content (speech they don't like) is still ongoing. So the potential fines over free speech are still upcoming.

perching_aix 11mo ago
Protected speech is what's covered by "free speech", not all speech. If you disagree with what specific areas of speech they find illegal, say so, be clear about it, rather than presupposing your views in your claims in an emotion evoking fashion (e.g. "speech they don't like"). It's extremely tiring to decipher takes like these and they're everywhere recently. It's supposed to be convincing, yet to read it without finding it jarring, I'd already need to agree with you. Makes no sense!
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  There is preexisting context that the US and EU disagree about what speech should be allowed.
  - perching_aix 11mo ago
    That does exist, yes. And even in the US, there are categories of speech which are handled differently. This is why mentions of "free speech" are inherently red herrings to me. It's an idea, a mirage, and a rather absolute one at that, especially under certain interpretations. It is something to get people ideologically motivated by and then used in my opinion. To me, it bears little difference to run of the mill marketing speak about agile and scrum, for example. Just like with code, the difference between idea and implementation is ever-shifting and never nil, sometimes intentionally so. It is not helped by how someone can read the same situation very differently, which is the whole premise behind the "speech that you don't like" narrative in the first place, in the face of which loaded assertions fare really quite poorly: https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartment/ https://programmerhumor.io/backend-memes/ourblesseddepartmen...

zb3 11mo ago

[flagged]

Timon3 11mo ago
This complaint can be valid if a) you're not guilty of the "official reason", or b) competitors are guilty of the same things and are not getting penalized. Can you show that either is true? Regarding b), there have been many, many articles posted here which show competitors being fined for various rule violations, so concrete examples would be great.
- zb3 11mo ago
  Or c) where you know that these requirements would impact your enemy more than others, or make it quit EU
  - Timon3 11mo ago
    Sure, that's theoretically possible. Since the violations listed by GP: > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. IMO don't fall under this & you didn't argue that they did, I didn't list this possibility. Which of the listed violations do you think falls under that, and which ones don't?

pessimizer 11mo ago

> Elon Musk's social media company X was fined 120 million euros ($140 million) by EU tech regulators on Friday for breaching EU online content rules This is what the article said. [edit, mostly wrong: "You gave the reason that was used for an investigation of TikTok, and I don't know where you got the blue check thing from."] > I hold back no criticism on free speech issues in eu (ie chat control) when it is correct to do so, but this case doesn't look like it edit: I got a bad load that cut off the end. What was actually said, however was, > EU regulators said X's DSA violations included the deceptive design of its blue checkmark for verified accounts, the lack of transparency of its advertising repository and its failure to provide researchers access to public data. Italics mine. The first line however, is about breaching "online content rules."