• Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    Shouldn’t they want it banned because it already broke the law? How many lines have to be crossed before anyone does anything?

    • BigJohnnyHines@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m not clicking the link to read this but these sort of headlines are often a result of their survey intentionally wording things like this to spin the narrative. Anyone who does in fact want it banned immediately would still say yes to the question. I’d suspect there are many such folks across Europe.

  • MrSulu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    100% of this European want X banned without further ado.

  • Seth Taylor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    If X fails to respond to the Commission’s fine, 70% of respondents were supportive of repercussions [3]. Among those, between 17-28% think that further fines should be given to X, between 23-29% believe X should be banned, and the largest segment - between 40-52% of those in favour of repercussions - believe that the Commission should fine and ban the social media service entirely from the EU [4].

  • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    154
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned. What’s different about X? The fact that Elon Musk runs it and he’s in with a powerful dictator?

    At some point you have to admit the CSAM is not the problem, it’s the person running it, whether they have the power to stop you/fight back or not.

    • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      not just banned, but there would be criminal charges brought on the owners.

      Musk should be prosecuted for distribution of CSAM.

      • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Absolutely. And soliciting Epstein for sex with minors. Let’s not forget about that. He was begging to get on the island and get some underage tail. It was pretty pathetic.

        He should be held liable, but he won’t be. Not by people who do the same thing.

    • fernandofig@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      What’s different about X?

      Well, you kind of said it yourself: The fact that, since it’s sadly still one of the largest social outlets, there’s a whole economy around it. If Europe banned X tomorrow, a lot of people and companies would take a non-negligible hit to their revenue. We can argue that probably these people are not a majority of the other half of people in Europe that don’t want X gone, but in the end, politicians and lawmakers care about money and (in a very distant second place) what the majority of their constituents say.

      • Pycorax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I wonder how feasible it would be if they’d announce a deadline whereby it would be blocked and recommend people and business to move onto a federated alternative.

        • FackCurs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          You and I both know people, politicians, journalists would just move to Threads before they move to the fedi or Bluesky or any FOSS alternative.

          They want an algorithm.

      • IratePirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        If Europe banned X tomorrow, a lot of people and companies would take a non-negligible hit to their revenue.

        Care to back up that claim? What exactly is Twitter’s contribution to their bottom line that they cannot live without?

        • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I mean, it’s obvious, the reach.

          Big follower count = More Reach = More people likely to click the links in your posts or contact you

          And that can be done elsewhere, but would require basically starting again from scratch, a big risk for a lot of corporations, and a big risk for independent creators (especially smut creators)

          • IratePirate@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            Tbh, I very much doubt that the bottom lines of, say, Dassault, BMW, Metro, or UBS would even budge if Twitter were to self-ignite over night, and their Twitter accounts with it. They’re (still) on this dumpster fire of a platform because “everybody is” and some bellend in marketing thinks it impossible not to do what all the others are doing. I’d argue no consumer cares what the Twitter account of Tesco’s has or hasn’t been posting this week, and it has zero effect on their purchasing decisions there.

            “Self-employed creators”, aka influencers, aka people shilling products while pretending to be your friend, might be affected more because they lack any non-virtual connection to their “customers” But then again, we could ask ourselves if these provide any real-world value and should exist in the first place.

            • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I mean I enjoy porn, and they are included in your much maligned self-employed creators. Also I enjoy YouTubers also in that category, and Twitch streamers, and Artists.

              Also you’re entirely ignoring there’s a middle point, the companies with less than 500 employees total.

              And honestly it’s less often that they use it that matters to them, but that it’s seen by fools as dodgy for a company to not have any social media presence, so they feel obligated to have one.

              Thankfully the ones at highest risk from Twitter getting enshitification are those which are trying to move away by doing posts that are like

              Follow me on OTHER SERVICE to get posts a day early, I repost from there to here

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        They wouldn’t suddenly ban it though.

        Any ban would roll in without enough time for people to switch away. Twitter doesn’t do anything special that can’t be replicated elsewhere.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned.

      On what legal grounds would that happen?

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        depends on the country, but the same framework as an individual spreading CSAM.

        Musk should be treated like the pedo he is.

      • bthest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Confiscate every server that X uses as evidence. Same thing you do with any CSAM case.

      • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read (on sites like Ars Technica that cover technology) about dark web sites trading CSAM being shut down. By the FBI in America, by Interpol in the EU… I don’t know what legal grounds they use to do it.

        You don’t think CSAM should be illegal? Or you genuinely don’t understand why it is, or what law it breaks?

        • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          don’t bother with them, they are a zionist and thinks laws shouldn’t apply to the powerful, (according to other comments they made in this post).

  • DandomRude@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Yes, it is unfortunately becoming increasingly clear that even in the EU, billionaires and their companies are above the law. The legal situation should be clear here and there should be consequences - but there apparently aren’t any.

    Unfortunately, this applies not only to Twitter, but to most US tech giants in particular, to meta, for example. I have already stopped counting the massive violations of the GDPR that meta and others are constantly committing, because nothing happens anyway. If anything, the fines are so low that violating the law brings these companies far more revenue than it costs them.

    So unfortunately, the same major issue that brought the US to the brink of a straight up dictatorship also applies in Europe: even the most blatant violations of the law have no serious consequences for the richest of the rich – and that is why billionaires are becoming more and more powerful.

    The situation may be better in the EU for now than in the US, whose legal system obviously no longer even maintains the appearance of fairness, but even in the EU, the enforcement of the law is miles away from anything that could even remotely be called justice.

    The reason seems to me to be the same as in the US: concentration of power in a tiny billionaire class that asserts its influence through corruption.

    I think that if things continue like this, and I see no indicators that they will not, it will not be long before even the appearance of justice is abandoned in the EU as well.

    Edit: Here is an example of how this is possible - it’s just plain old corruption, but in the highest ranks of our institutions: From Meta to the EU Parliament: Former chief lobbyist negotiates data protection (German article)

    Aura Salla was Meta’s chief lobbyist in Brussels for many years. Her task: to convince politicians to weaken EU digital rules such as data protection in order to generate even higher profits with Facebook, WhatsApp, and other platforms.

    • nao@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      According to a new YouGov survey, a vast majority of respondents in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland (60-78%) think that the EU should take further action against X if it does not address breaches to European law brought forward by the Commission last year [1]. The majority of those (62%-73%) who wanted further action – and 47% of total participants – want X to be banned from the EU if it refuses to address these breaches [2]