3 ms·
tl;dr The three reasons for the fine are: * Lack of transparency / misleading verified checkmarks * Lack of open data access * Lack of any ad transparency s
by saubeidl 10mo ago
tl;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.
- touwer 10mo agoBased on what information?