this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
846 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59495 readers
3002 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853884

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256

To whom it may concern.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

If someone told me "I don't like Musk, I'm going to stop using Twitter", I'd say "good for you". I think it's great when people stand up for their beliefs and put their money where their mouth is.

If someone told me "I don't like Musk, so you're not allowed to use Twitter", I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. It's none of their business whether they personally like what it is that I want to do as long as I'm not hurting anyone.

Inb4: I'm not a Twitter user and probably never will be, but I believe very strongly in the freedom of expression, even when that means I have to hear things that I don't like.

[–] lemmus@szmer.info 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ew, that sounds bad. I would prefer "promote open twitter-like social media" instead of "ban X" (you can replace X with any other website/software, even FOSS one). No banning should be allowed in EU.

[–] 46_and_2@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Yeah, keep X on and pile up the multi-million fines if they don't comply with laws. That's the only thing companies care about - something eating up their profits.

And if they keep not complying - then ban it altogether, like Brazil did. I prefer to recognize and ban it for the illegal activities it does, not because some folks don't like it and banded together against it.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They should pass a resolution that all EU member nations shall create official Mastodon and Lemmy instances. Moderators and admins would be actual jobs constrained by the relevant national or EU law.

(Or replace Mastodon and Lemmy with whatever open platforms you deem appropriate)

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I like this idea.

Twitter was supposed to be the "online town hall". And online public spaces are not publicly owned, they're run by private companies that can ban you at their own whims.

With each country having their own federated platforms, they can truly act as online public spaces where the usual laws apply as they would do offline.

You'd need to employ thousands of moderators though if everyone was online but honestly I think it's worth it.

But don't be handing out prison sentences for posting stupid shit. Online harassment and calls for violence can still be legally handled the same way they are offline, but jailing people for offensive jokes and stupid hot takes is just idiotic.

Best way is temporary bans increasing exponentially in length, then small percentage of income fines again increasing exponentially.

Also, and I'd argue we already need this, a court system for online crimes. This means the regular court system doesn't get more workload added on to it and specialist judges and lawyers can be appointed.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm okay with this as long as things like general political or religious speech is protected. When you're punised for speaking against the majority, congratulations you have left/center authoritarianism and it's no better than fascism in my opinion.

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

Agreed. Perhaps the best implementation is a highly integrated mix of Mastodon and Lemmy where Mastodon is used for general discussion and news and Lemmy is used for organising communities around subjects like politics and religion.

[–] schwim@lemm.ee 72 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Ah, a change.org petition . I eagerly await the sweeping improvements to life abroad.

[–] FuryMaker@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Has any petition here ever actually lead to any change?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 117 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ah change.org the platform best known for not changing anything ever.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah, but they're great at discharging the righteous indignation of people who might otherwise do something extreme like going on demonstrations or start campaigning for non-"moderate" political parties.

This way people just put their personal data next to a meaningless and powerless piece of text on a website alongside that of other people, get the feeling of release after having done something about what pisses them of, and won't do anything further about it.

Petitions are the single greatest invention of the Internet Age to keep the masses dormant (Social Media would've been it if, it wasn't that, as the far-right has shown, it can be used to turn some people into activists).

[–] max55@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

I also don't think banning anything is the way to go. Who don't want to use X doesn't have to - there is Reddit, Mastadon, BlueSky and others.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Why there are always petitions to ban something, not to create something, like eu based social network everyone can join and use for free ?

[–] eunieisthebus@feddit.org 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Found the market liberal.

You ban stuff not because it is bad and you want something better. You ban stuff that is so bad that is actually harmful.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

As with hate speech, the harm needs to be quantifiable. "I don't like that people are sharing ideas and opinions that I personally disagree with" doesn't cut it.

The price of freedom of speech is needing to hear things that make you uncomfortable every now and again. Deciding what people can and can't write on the internet is a slippery slope.

[–] Spezi@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The German government already has their own mastodon instance on social.bund.de

Much better alternative to a EU funded social network, as this would automatically drive critics to the assumption, that politicians are controlling the narrative and deleting critical content. Also supports the development of open source and self hosted alternatives this way.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 59 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Op, if you want to submit a petition to the EU, you should use their portal https://www.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/en/home not change.org

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 6 points 2 days ago

Exactly. This is the only correct answer. Change.org petitions are as worthless as a 7 euros banknote.

[–] Bruncvik@lemmy.world 102 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Everyone who signed the petition should close their Twitter accounts. And write their newspapers that they would cancel their subscriptions if the articles quoted or embedded tweets. I didn't sign any petition, and I'm already doing it. Well, sort of. I didn't have any Twitter account ro close.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Maybe not quote, but embed. They should still quote noteworthy things on there, but don't force us to interact with the site

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

I hate the amount of lazy journalism that embedded tweets have spawned, I will find articles that say "people are saying" something and the proof is three random tweets with about 6 likes between them.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

How about "if you don't like Musk, don't use X or buy a Tesla?"

I personally don't really like any billionaires at all, but I'm not going to get in to a hissy fit because someone uses Microsoft Windows or bought something from Amazon.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s all well and good, and that’s currently my policy.

But that’s an entirely different discussion than whether banning a certain propaganda platform is worth doing and would cause the intended results.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The first thought that comes to my mind is that the people in Twitter are just going to migrate to another social network. It won't be problem solved, it'll be problem moved.

The second thought I have is the amount of hate and comments full of misinformation on sites like Facebook. Should we ban Facebook too? And if so, where does it stop and who is it that gets to decide that a site is getting banned for "wrong think".

Personally, I believe this isn't so much a petition against X, but a petition against Musk, who I think wouldn't be absolutely gutted even if X went out of business. I think he bought it with the aim of derailing anyway.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

I'm not going to get in to a hissy fit because someone uses Microsoft Windows or bought something from Amazon

You're more mature than some people here.

[–] maplebar@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Corporate nationalist social media like "X" (American oligarchy) and TikTok (Chinese oligarchy) are a danger to the sovereignty and stability of the Western world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I don't like the idea of governments banning access to a website, unless its like CSAM.

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 days ago (16 children)

See it more like "preventing a website whose owner refuses to comply withEuropean law from operating in the EU".

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (3 children)

fuck CSAM, but where do we draw the line?

let laws regulate society and don't let government regulate directly.

for example, instead of banning access to X, outlaw the use of Social media in direct advertising. Make the EU market so hostile towards their business practices they can't legally operate.

then, it's "X" that refuses to operate within the laws we as a people have required, not just an over-reaching autocrat.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 1 points 21 hours ago

That's cool for the EU (probably) but there's still the other 90% of the world.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I don't think that banning social platforms is a good idea, unless its hosting illegal content. As bad as ""X"" is, banning it could be a slippery slope.

Although, I don't think this change.org petition will get far.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (9 children)

That's a bad idea because of how reliant small businesses are on social media advertising. A regulation like that would essentially screw over every business that isn't rich enough to go to bigger advertising venues.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Twitter is not the sole, or even the biggest social media company in Europe. It's not even in the top 3.

The advertisement sector will be fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Why stop there, why not ban Elon all together?

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 58 points 2 days ago (10 children)

As much as I dislike Musk, expansion of the great firewall of Europe seems like a bad idea.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

+1

They should discourage institutions from using it (and use government Mastadon instances of course). This is honestly long overdue.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 43 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Let's at least block the government agencies from using it in favor of open platforms and protocols to communicate with its citizens.

At least give me some good ole RSS in the backend, and they could host their own Mastodon instances that people can subscribe to from other public instances.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›