5 ms·

"Tech and speech regulation is a central feature of that conflict" The only conflict is that Europeans don't want Russian Misinformation and Manipulation from

"Tech and speech regulation is a central feature of that conflict" The only conflict is that Europeans don't want Russian Misinformation and Manipulation from foreign powers onto them. It's no accident that Musks X serves preferentially content from European Far-Right Parties. The US used the same argument for their TikTok-Ban/Forced Takeover. They also don't make a secret out of their plan to push the far-right to end the EU. They even wrote about this in their new National Security Strategy Pure Hypocrisy

joe_mamba 10mo ago
>They also don't make a secret out of their plan to push the far-right to end the EU. How is the "far right" gonna end "the EU"? When my GF walks alone at night through the parks she's never EVER afraid of the mythical far right for her safety, but the other people the far left won't let us talk about without being called a label and being cancelled from MSM for having common sense opinions. So if the EU were to find its end, it will be 100% at the hand of its own making, from years of corruption and financial mismanagement, from years of pushing unpopular open borders far left policies that nobody was asked it they agree with them or not. That's what will end the EU. Not Musk, not X, not Putin, not Trump, but the EU bureaucrats and their unpopular policies who then use boogiemen like X and "russian misinformation" and "far right" as scapegoats to deflect from their failures like this: Corruption being exposed on X? Must be Russian misinformation. Illegal migrant crime exposed on X. Must be far right misinformation. Epstein Files? Democrat hoax. Etc but you get the point. Politicians hate accountability and media channels they can't control like X that risk exposing their mistakes and corruption. They want full control of media to tell you what's acceptable to think, since the internet and social media made traditional state controlled media obsolete. They don't want control of social media and user ID verification to "protect the children", they want it to protect themselves from criticism and accountability from you. It's not Elon's or Trump's or Putin's or the far right's fault the healthcare in my country has been on a decline for 10+ years. It's not their fault wages are stagnating but property prices are skyrocketing which is what most voters care about. That's the fault of the ECB fiscal policies. It's not their fault public safety is down and crime is up. That's the fault of EU border control and irresponsible migration policies. Etc. you get the point. So it's disingenuous at best and bad faith at worst, to ignore these long going systemic issues the EU has self inflicted on its voters, and just blame the far right for the backlash it has inevitably lead to.
- Kelteseth 10mo ago
  You're making it sound way more dramatic than it is [1]. And yes X is a far right echo chamber that twists the narrative so that the extreme right get the most support out of it. X is the biggest help for foreign power to sow discord among us [2] [1] https://www.dw.com/en/crime-statistics-knife-crime-drugs-life-in-germany-safe-dangerous-graphics-v3/a-74008709 https://www.dw.com/en/crime-statistics-knife-crime-drugs-lif... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj38m11218xo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj38m11218xo
  - joe_mamba 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - decremental 10mo ago
      [dead]
    - aniviacat 10mo ago
      I'm unsure why you're spinning a discussion about foreign interference in the EU into a discussion about Republicans vs. Democrats. To the EU, it doesn't matter much if it's the Republicans or the Democrats doing it. What matters is that the USA is trying to interfere with the EU's political landscape. It would be bad if they pushed the extreme left, too. They just happen to be pushing the extreme right. (The reason right-wing political violence is more talked about in the EU is also rather simple: It is much more prevalent. https://www.bka.de/DE/UnsereAufgaben/Deliktsbereiche/PMK/PMKZahlen2024/PMKZahlen2024_node.html https://www.bka.de/DE/UnsereAufgaben/Deliktsbereiche/PMK/PMK...)
      - joe_mamba 9mo ago
        >The reason right-wing political violence is more talked about in the EU is also rather simple: It is much more prevalent. Ah yes, data of left wing government in power shows that the big problem is only the "hate speech twitter comments hate crime" of their growing right wing opposition that threatens their power. 100% trustworthy and unbiased of them. Just like to UK government denying grooming gangs were not real and only due to "far right white supremacists", until they couldn't hide it anymore thanks to the backlash on social media they're trying to ban right now. Always believe what your leaders are telling you, as they have your best interest at heart and would never lie to you to protect their own interests.
selfmodruntime 10mo ago
[flagged]
- bflesch 10mo ago
  There is a big difference between right to free speech by citizens of a certain country vs. someone working in the military propaganda unit of a foreign country who artificially amplifies their opinion thousandfold while masquerading as a citizen of the victim country with ultimate goal to harm the victim country.
  - selfmodruntime 10mo ago
    You are focusing on identity and intent, e.g you are defending the restriction of speech based on who is speaking and why. Knowing the difference between an opinion of an origin you consider valid and one you consider invalid is difficult enough that one can abuse that justification to censor "real" speech by citizens.
    - lossolo 10mo ago
      So you are basically arguing that it's hard to distinguish, therefore we shouldn't try. By that logic, we couldn't prosecute fraud because it's sometimes hard to distinguish from aggressive marketing, or couldn't have espionage laws because it's hard to distinguish from journalism. The distinction isn't about "valid" vs "invalid" opinions, as you framed it, it's just about authenticity and coordination. A Russian citizen genuinely expressing pro Kremlin views on their personal account is exercising speech. A state funded operation running hundreds of fake accounts pretending to be American citizens, artificially amplifying divisive content, is something different, it's basically a form of information warfare. And what I write here isn't theoretical, coordinated influence operations have inflamed ethnic tensions from the Balkans to Myanmar, not to mention Russian-Ukraininan conflict propaganda. These aren't just "opinions we disagree with", they're documented operations with measurable effects on real world violence. I mean this is a form of war, in which some countries want to destroy your society fabric for their advantage. Every democracy already makes this distinction in other domains. Foreign governments can't donate to political campaigns. Foreign agents must register when lobbying. Do you call them violations of free speech? They're just acknowledgments that coordinated foreign influence is fundamentally different from citizen discourse. The difficulty of drawing lines doesn't mean no lines exist.
tick_tock_tick 10mo ago
[flagged]
- hermanzegerman 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - bflesch 10mo ago
    Thanks for calling that guy out, it's ridiculous how confidently they spew such nonsense.

joe_mamba 10mo ago

>They also don't make a secret out of their plan to push the far-right to end the EU. How is the "far right" gonna end "the EU"? When my GF walks alone at night through the parks she's never EVER afraid of the mythical far right for her safety, but the other people the far left won't let us talk about without being called a label and being cancelled from MSM for having common sense opinions. So if the EU were to find its end, it will be 100% at the hand of its own making, from years of corruption and financial mismanagement, from years of pushing unpopular open borders far left policies that nobody was asked it they agree with them or not. That's what will end the EU. Not Musk, not X, not Putin, not Trump, but the EU bureaucrats and their unpopular policies who then use boogiemen like X and "russian misinformation" and "far right" as scapegoats to deflect from their failures like this: Corruption being exposed on X? Must be Russian misinformation. Illegal migrant crime exposed on X. Must be far right misinformation. Epstein Files? Democrat hoax. Etc but you get the point. Politicians hate accountability and media channels they can't control like X that risk exposing their mistakes and corruption. They want full control of media to tell you what's acceptable to think, since the internet and social media made traditional state controlled media obsolete. They don't want control of social media and user ID verification to "protect the children", they want it to protect themselves from criticism and accountability from you. It's not Elon's or Trump's or Putin's or the far right's fault the healthcare in my country has been on a decline for 10+ years. It's not their fault wages are stagnating but property prices are skyrocketing which is what most voters care about. That's the fault of the ECB fiscal policies. It's not their fault public safety is down and crime is up. That's the fault of EU border control and irresponsible migration policies. Etc. you get the point. So it's disingenuous at best and bad faith at worst, to ignore these long going systemic issues the EU has self inflicted on its voters, and just blame the far right for the backlash it has inevitably lead to.

Kelteseth 10mo ago
You're making it sound way more dramatic than it is [1]. And yes X is a far right echo chamber that twists the narrative so that the extreme right get the most support out of it. X is the biggest help for foreign power to sow discord among us [2] [1] https://www.dw.com/en/crime-statistics-knife-crime-drugs-life-in-germany-safe-dangerous-graphics-v3/a-74008709 https://www.dw.com/en/crime-statistics-knife-crime-drugs-lif... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj38m11218xo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj38m11218xo
- joe_mamba 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - decremental 10mo ago
    [dead]
  - aniviacat 10mo ago
    I'm unsure why you're spinning a discussion about foreign interference in the EU into a discussion about Republicans vs. Democrats. To the EU, it doesn't matter much if it's the Republicans or the Democrats doing it. What matters is that the USA is trying to interfere with the EU's political landscape. It would be bad if they pushed the extreme left, too. They just happen to be pushing the extreme right. (The reason right-wing political violence is more talked about in the EU is also rather simple: It is much more prevalent. https://www.bka.de/DE/UnsereAufgaben/Deliktsbereiche/PMK/PMKZahlen2024/PMKZahlen2024_node.html https://www.bka.de/DE/UnsereAufgaben/Deliktsbereiche/PMK/PMK...)
    - joe_mamba 9mo ago
      >The reason right-wing political violence is more talked about in the EU is also rather simple: It is much more prevalent. Ah yes, data of left wing government in power shows that the big problem is only the "hate speech twitter comments hate crime" of their growing right wing opposition that threatens their power. 100% trustworthy and unbiased of them. Just like to UK government denying grooming gangs were not real and only due to "far right white supremacists", until they couldn't hide it anymore thanks to the backlash on social media they're trying to ban right now. Always believe what your leaders are telling you, as they have your best interest at heart and would never lie to you to protect their own interests.

selfmodruntime 10mo ago

[flagged]

bflesch 10mo ago
There is a big difference between right to free speech by citizens of a certain country vs. someone working in the military propaganda unit of a foreign country who artificially amplifies their opinion thousandfold while masquerading as a citizen of the victim country with ultimate goal to harm the victim country.
- selfmodruntime 10mo ago
  You are focusing on identity and intent, e.g you are defending the restriction of speech based on who is speaking and why. Knowing the difference between an opinion of an origin you consider valid and one you consider invalid is difficult enough that one can abuse that justification to censor "real" speech by citizens.
  - lossolo 10mo ago
    So you are basically arguing that it's hard to distinguish, therefore we shouldn't try. By that logic, we couldn't prosecute fraud because it's sometimes hard to distinguish from aggressive marketing, or couldn't have espionage laws because it's hard to distinguish from journalism. The distinction isn't about "valid" vs "invalid" opinions, as you framed it, it's just about authenticity and coordination. A Russian citizen genuinely expressing pro Kremlin views on their personal account is exercising speech. A state funded operation running hundreds of fake accounts pretending to be American citizens, artificially amplifying divisive content, is something different, it's basically a form of information warfare. And what I write here isn't theoretical, coordinated influence operations have inflamed ethnic tensions from the Balkans to Myanmar, not to mention Russian-Ukraininan conflict propaganda. These aren't just "opinions we disagree with", they're documented operations with measurable effects on real world violence. I mean this is a form of war, in which some countries want to destroy your society fabric for their advantage. Every democracy already makes this distinction in other domains. Foreign governments can't donate to political campaigns. Foreign agents must register when lobbying. Do you call them violations of free speech? They're just acknowledgments that coordinated foreign influence is fundamentally different from citizen discourse. The difficulty of drawing lines doesn't mean no lines exist.

tick_tock_tick 10mo ago

[flagged]

hermanzegerman 10mo ago
[flagged]
- bflesch 10mo ago
  Thanks for calling that guy out, it's ridiculous how confidently they spew such nonsense.