It wasn’t like a law banning X. They were Court ordered to do something and they didn’t do it.
Could that happen in other countries? I mean sure but not the way you’re implying.
The UK government has already accused them of stirring up riots.
We ban piracy sites on the largest ISPs, and could easily add X to that list.
Yes, please!!
I’m genuinely surprised why the UK haven’t already
Under what law?
UK currently holds the people that post things liable for their own words. X, the platform, just relays what is said. Same as Lemmy. Same as Mastodon.
If you ban X I don’t see why those other platforms wouldn’t be next.
Now should people/organisations/companies leave X? Absolutely! Evacuate like it’s a house of fire. Should it be shut down by legal means? No.
An argument being made in another social media case (involving TikTok) is that algorithmic feeds of other users’ content are effectively new content, created by the platform. So if Twitter does anything other than a chronological sorting, it could be considered to be making its own, deliberately-produced content, since they’re now in control of what you see and when you see it. Depending on how the TikTok argument gets interpreted in the courts, it could possibly affect how Twitter can operate in the future.
It’s certainly arguable that the algorithm constitutes an editorial process and so that opens them up to libel laws and to liability.
Fair point.
That argument is being made in the USA, not the UK.
Let’s say this goes through, how is a company going to prove it is not using an “algorithmic feed” unless they open source their code and/or provide some public interface to test and validate feed content?
Plus, even without an “algorithmic feed”, couldn’t some third party using bots control a simple chronological or upvote/like-based feed? And then those third parties, via contracts and agreements, would manipulate the content rather than the social media owner itself.
unless they open source their code and/or provide some public interface to test and validate feed content
This honestly seems like a good idea. I think one of the ways to mitigate the harm of algorithmically driven content feeds is openness and transparency.
Well for the end users and any regulators it’s a great idea. But the companies aren’t going to go along with this.
Then they must be held liable for what they allow to spread on their platforms
Twitter (or rather musk) chooses what it “relays” or boosts. Unlike lemmy, unlike Mastodon.
The Australian Government issued a bunch of take down notices to Twitter and Musk said no
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/what-can-the-government-do-about-x/103752600
Musk decided to block them in Australian only which didn’t satisfy the Australian Government
He took them to court and the court sided with Twitter, (x)
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/australian-court-elon-musk-x-freedom-of-speech-row-1236000561/
The complexity and contradictions were illustrated by Tim Begbie, the lawyer representing the eSafety Commissioner in court. He said that in other cases X had chosen of its own accord to remove content, but that it resisted the order from the Australian government.
“X says […] global removal is reasonable when X does it because X wants to do it, but it becomes unreasonable when it is told to do it by the laws of Australia,” Begbie told the court.
Here’s the thing about nation state governments. They can pass laws. It’s kind of the main thing they do.
They retain authority by having some air of legitimacy. They can’t just change laws, there has to be a due process just changing laws without a process is literally a dictatorship.
I agree. It would set a terrible precedent, even if it’s terribly tempting. I’d say it’s better to ask people to leave instead.
I’m sure they would like to but they don’t really have the authority.
unfortunately i still have to side against national firewalls even when i think they’re extremely funny
I initially agreed with you but this is a bit different. Actually haven’t banned anything it’s just a court order so it wasn’t done because some politician decided it should happen it was done because of things that Twitter chose to do, or not do as the case may be.
Presumably this won’t be permanent provided the capitulate.
I think they don’t have a literal national firewall, rather they demanded every single ISP in the country to block the domain.
deleted by creator
i’m pretty sure that’s how most national firewalls work. it’s still government censorship of internet resources on a national level
I’m all for adopting Wayland but some compatibility should be preserved. An outright ban seems a bit extreme.
😂👌🏻
Yes, they should.
Twitter already bans and takes down posts for most other nations, Musk even posted about how they have to to operate.
This is quite literally no different. If you want to operate in a country, love or hate it, you have to agree to their laws for their users. If the EU laws say posting revenge porn, you can’t ignore them and say nuh uh we’re a US company free speech. If Japan has a law saying posting bomb instructions is an instaban, you have follow suit. And in Brazil, 7 accounts, seven were identified by a court as needing to be taken down for spreading misinformation. You can object, but then stop doing it for the other countries as well, because Twitter absolutely must cooperate with the US and EU on these requests or they get massive fines as well. And they do.
Its a stupid act of grandstanding and Elon thought they would blink first, or the fallout wouldn’t be so obvious and massive.
I hope so.
Musk complied with India, why isn’t he complying with Brazil?
Because our current government is center left and the accounts were supporters of the right. That’s all there is to it, he even reinstated Monark’s account, a podcaster from here that fled to the USA after arguing that Nazis should be free to have their own political party, and after arriving there said that we shouldn’t criminalize the consumption of CSAM, just production.
X has been banned in several authoritarian countries. Brazil has banned several social media sites to force them to comply with revealing info of selected users and banning accounts of government selected accounts.
I think any country would ban a business whose CEO ignores requests by its judges and even proceeds to taunt them. An international business that decides which laws it does or does not follow is pretty dystopian, all X had to do was what Google has done for ages, comply with the law regionally.
X gave up the info on hundreds of accounts and blocked hundreds more. Google will do anything to make money, spread any lie, just look what they did when they tried to expand into China.
If X did that, then there wouldn’t be this thread. It isn’t just Google, it’s every international corporation that has to deal with issues across the border. I’m sorry, bud, but outside of the Musk personality cult chamber, the guy is just incompetent, he just made and inherited a few risky bets that worked out for him and he’s still riding their fading glory.
Yes
deleted by creator
Plenty of good reasons to ban things, even if they’re useful. Asbestos. In fact, banning asbestos didn’t harm anyone, as your comment would imply. It actually helped people.
deleted by creator
So by virtue of social media existing, it can’t be flawed? It can’t be broken? It can’t be harmful? It can’t be pushing racist and fascist ideology?
There’s a mountain of evidence showing the harms social media does, and you’re just acting like all that research doesn’t exist.
deleted by creator
Let’s hope so. Destroy all a-social media platforms!
Sure, X is a pool of sewage. But banning it? Why? Let them do what they want.
Again, you’d be shooting the messenger.
Also, the double-standards are stupid: countries in the Middle East block social media - bad; Brazil blocks X - good. Elon’s an asshole but that’s not the way you do things. If X is in the wrong what the government should to is apply a hefty fine. Or sue them. Or both.
Elon just wouldn’t pay and sueing generally ends in a fine which Elon would again not pay. Eventually a blanket ban is the only effective solution if a company refuses to get along.
That’s your excuse? Weak. And very poor policy… He won’t do it let’s skip due process and go full censorship 'cos Musk’s easy to hate. Weird legal system that is…
First fine. Heavily. Only after the company fails to pay do you proceed to stronger deterrents.
By all means follow the other sheep.
Additionally, the judge froze the financial assets of Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet company, to cover unpaid fines amounting to 18.5 million reais ($3.28 million) imposed on X for non-compliance.
So, exactly what Brazil has done?
Edit:
Some more detail on the daily fines imposed, and total fines due.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-x-could-face-ban-in-brazil-after-failure-to-appoint-legal-representativeThis freeze of Starlink’s financial assets is so absurd, that even Brazilian Speaker of the House (a big son of a bitch himself) criticized it. He made a comparison to another recent national scandal about retailer Americanas defrauding it’s accounting to hide the fact it is in deep debt. Its owner fled to Europe to avoid persecution. Under the same argument, they’d be authorized to freeze Ambev’s (beverage company which is partially owned by Americanas’ owner) assets to cover for Americanas’ debt.
The insane judge that ordered the asset freeze is so blinded by his vendetta against Elon Musk that he does dumb shit like this, which is putting a big stain on Brazil credibility to foreign investors. If a single insane judge can do this on his whim, who would want to invest in Brazil?
The key point here was 18.5 million in unpaid fines. If you wanna move the goal posts to liquidating related assets that’s fine, but you said due process has been skipped when very clearly due process was followed, musk ignored it and pretended to be above the law like he normally does, musk got his company banned.
There are legal ways for the judicial system to recover assets. Going after other companies, even if Musk has 40% stake on Starlink, is madness. One thing does not justify the other.
Sure, but the fines have gone unpaid.
The private owner of the private company X has enough money to cover the fines.
Brazil is now seizing assets to try and recover the amount due.X isn’t declaring bankruptcy. X is flaunting legal rulings and dodging fines.
If that scares away “investors” that are going to skirt or flaunt laws, rulings and legality then it seems like a decent result for Brazil.No minimally serious country destroys the legal separation between different companies so brazenly. If it is for such a thing to happen, it’s only on exceptional circunstances, and only after the a full lawsuit concludes its natural course, giving all affected parties the right to offer their defenses. Anything far from these basic civilizational principles is no more than a whim from a dictator’s inflated ego.
This is what “eat the rich” and “if a punishment is a fee, it’s an operating cost” mean. You get your company banned and personal assets seized. It’s delicious.
Anyway, I’m not going to take your outrage seriously.
First it was hell bent that no legal process had been done, which took me all of 2 seconds of googling to disprove.
Now it’s that only uncivilised places would dare seize personal assets. And somehow still that no legal process has been done.This has been going on for months, with musk acting like the man-baby he is.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brazil-elon-musk-x-twitter-free-speech-disinformation-obstruction/
You’re talking about this like blocking the free flow of ground-up information is the same as blocking cunty authoritarian propaganda.
the double-standards are stupid: countries in the Middle East block social media - bad; Brazil blocks X - good.
That sounds like a massive oversimplification. Why are these countries blocking or banning social media platforms? How do their citizens feel about the decisions? Those are the things that should be focused on, not boring American culture war shit.
If the Government issues an order to remove a post that says “Don’t Get vaccinated and pray instead” vs “you called our President/King/Autocrat a cnut, so your post should be removed and your ID passed on so you can be prosecuted” are both having the govenrmt intervene, most sane people in democracies would be ok with the former but not the latter.
As an Australian I was NOT ok with the Australian governments esafety commissioner trying their stunt with Twitter. I find it doubly amazing the continued use of the service by any of our politicians , fcuk them. Set up a Mastodon instance and use that ffs.
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/australian-court-elon-musk-x-freedom-of-speech-row-1236000561/
Twitter isn’t the messenger. This is what they want you to think. Twitter is a private, for profit company. It’s not a public place lake the street. They have to be proactive and follow the local laws. They are responsible for what you can read on it as well as the people posting.
This is a huge difference with the street. The street is public not private, you’re responsible for what you say.
Internet is not the wilde west. Companies have to follow and adapt to the local law or just not operating there.
