5 ms·
The EU's fine against X is not about speech or ‘censorship’
- DivingForGold 10mo ago[flagged]
- drooopy 10mo agoDenial of free speech? In which way? And it's incomprehensible that you would bring random Ukraine bashing into your argument out of the blue.
- squigz 10mo agoIn what way has X/Twitter been innovative lately? I suppose renaming to X might count?
- mittensc 10mo ago> US State Dept has just announced Visa restrictions on all those EU officials involved So... what? Visa restrictions can go both ways with US billionaires and politicians getting denied. Who's gonna back down?
- danielbln 10mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46325926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46325926 This you?
- TZubiri 10mo ago[flagged]
- nailer 10mo agoVerification has never meant you’re a good person on any platform
- submeta 10mo agoThe EU is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-Russian or anti-Israeli. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. This suggests a growing conviction within the EU that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?
- realusername 10mo ago> Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Yeah sure """journalists""", the list of individuals under sanction in the EU is small and usually there's a good reason they are in that list.
- submeta 10mo agoThe size of the list is irrelevant. What matters is the precedent. Restricting banking or travel based on political assessments, without criminal conviction or transparent judicial review, is a serious breach of the rule of law. Simply asserting “good reasons” is not an argument.
- saubeidl 10mo agoMay I introduce you to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/tourists-foreign-visitors-trump-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/tourists-for...
- realusername 10mo agoAll the people in this list are criminals of various kind, money laundrers and some of them even terrorists. You should ask yourself the opposite, why people supporting Russian views in the EU often are from a criminal background?
- submeta 10mo ago
- saubeidl 10mo agotl;dr The three reasons for the fine are: * Lack of transparency / misleading verified checkmarks * Lack of open data access * Lack of any ad transparency showing who paid to show which ads None of those are censorship. All of those are basic good governance and transparency. The censorship angle is nothing but FUD by an admin terrified of good governance and transparency.
- mikkupikku 10mo agoTwo of those, "transparency" and "open data access" are demands from those who would subsequently use that information and access to inform and enforce censorship.
- saubeidl 10mo agoThat sounds like quite the claim, do you have any evidence to support it? Personally, I'd like to know who is trying to steer the conversation, in light of psyop campaigns and hybrid warfare against our democracy. I'd also like researchers to be able to examine how a large public forum is run. Again, transparency is the name of the game.
- mikkupikku 10mo ago> I'd like to know who is trying to steer the conversation, in light of psyop campaigns and hybrid warfare against our democracy. What use is that information to governments, if not to guide their censorship efforts? It's a setup for labelling your opposition as "hybrid warfare" combatants, not because they picked up a gun but rather because they're saying things you think shouldn't be said.
- saubeidl 10mo agoThe information isn't made available to governments, it's made available to the people. What X is scared of is showing that @AlabamaMAGALady and @DeutscherPatriot are based in St. Petersburg. Again, there is no censorship. Just a transparency requirement.
- energy123 10mo agoRegulate the algorithm. Make it boring.
- nailer 10mo agoThe algorithm is open source and on GitHub. It is pretty boring.
- CamelCaseName 10mo agoThat's a very outdated algorithm, which is why X was willing to open source it.
- nailer 10mo agoSo campaign for an update.
- baobun 10mo agoNo it is not open source and on GitHub. I think it is fair to call that repo fake. It is not even runnable code.
- omnimus 10mo agoAlso who cares what they publish. They would have to prove they run the same code. Otherwise it can be just gen AI coded whatever.
- nickthegreek 10mo agoThey have proved that they do not on several occasions.
- touwer 10mo agoAnd you believe that?
- 10mo ago
- nailer 10mo agoOf course it is. Prior checkmarks were for anyone who could pay 15K USD. X simply made it cheaper. There is also a bizarre fine against Elon personally. The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech. Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves.
- nutjob2 10mo agoEU laws are made by elected representatives. You make unsupported claims of censorship, but how exactly is a fine against misleading blue dot censorship since it contains no speech? The company could change how they describe the blue dot or attach disclaimers but they don't. Why? Because the EU's actions serve Musk's and the Administrations political goals of vilifying anyone who has a different view, especially the EU, and using the levers of the state to retaliate and threaten. > The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech. If it wasn't for ASML there would be no tech industry. The world depends on a single EU company for advanced chips and for its continued prosperity. > Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves. You're just another EU hater pushing mindless tropes. Why are you so full of hate?
- modsmidsmods 10mo ago[dead]
- fidotron 10mo ago> EU laws are made by elected representatives. No, they are voted on by elected representatives. They must be proposed by the commission, which is not elected but appointed.
- saubeidl 10mo agoUgh not this misdirection again. The commission is appointed by directly elected governments. It's the same as any ministerial post in any government. It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College.
- CamelCaseName 10mo agoHow many people get scammed every day on X because the verification badge is a "Spend $1-5" badge? This was especially plain to see in the crypto side of twitter. Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars. The average internet user is closer to your grandmother than you or me, and that is who these laws are meant to protect.
- gruez 10mo ago>Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars. So what's the right level of "responsibility"? Is letsencrypt issuing certificates to websites (which shows a lock icon in browsers) also fooling grandma into sending over her credit card details? What about EV certificates from a few years ago, where you paid ~$300/yr for a green lock? Should the EU get in the business of regulating what levels of verification are required to show lock/checkmark icons?
- gjsman-1000 10mo agoTo continue this train of thought, what happens when the EU decides that unverified users must be hidden by default and can only be accessed by direct lookup?
- bigyabai 10mo agoX users would finally come to the realization that they own nothing and support an entirely unprincipled service?
- fidotron 10mo agoIt will end like Germany where to put anything on the Internet your physical address must be visible. This is what they've been pushing for with app stores.
- ban4opinions 10mo ago[flagged]
- modsmidsmods 10mo ago[dead]
- letsthinkmoreok 10mo ago[dead]
- cientifico 10mo agoI don't know how it is in US, but in Europe, the amount of scams is growing. Twitter blue checkmark was created to distinguish real humans vs scammers. The fine was to protected the users from that scam. I like paying taxes to protected the users that don't have the ability to detect scams as we all here have (most of the time). EU miss the point equally to the Congress in uuss when non tech people believe they can rule (or just lobbied). But on this case, there will be no problem if Twitter had decided to use another checkmark for pro accounts.