- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853884
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256
To whom it may concern.
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s absolutely no sensible reason to even consider doing this.
There’s absolutely no sensible reason to even consider not doing this.
Site doesn’t load. I trust they’re talking about banning it financially, not with a firewall, right?
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.
Why there are always petitions to ban something, not to create something, like eu based social network everyone can join and use for free ?
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.
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.
Fascism
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.
Petition calls to ban world hunger
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.
Agree with the first part, but news ought to still quote tweets while it exists, otherwise they cannot denounce many of the wrong things going on in there. I quote the Guardian’s email I received this week (even if I prefer quoting to embedding, as tweets get deleted, and embeds brings traffic to the site):
Dear reader, Yesterday we announced that we will no longer post on any official Guardian editorial accounts on the social media site X (formerly Twitter). We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our content elsewhere. This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse. X users will still be able to share our articles, and the nature of live news reporting means we will still occasionally embed content from X within our article pages. Our reporters will also be able to carry on using the site for newsgathering purposes, just as they use other social networks in which we don’t officially engage. Social media can be an important tool for news organisations and help us to reach new audiences but, at this point, X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there. You can also enjoy our journalism on the Guardian app and discover new pieces via our brilliant set of regular newsletters. Thankfully, we can do this because our business model doesn’t rely on viral content tailored to the whims of the social media giants’ algorithms – instead we’re funded directly by our readers.
write their newspapers that they would cancel their subscriptions if the articles quoted … tweets.
Given the former and future president of the USA’s habit of announcing policies there, that seems unworkable.
I’m not American, but even I heard about Trump tweeting like a maniac. Here in Europe, though, the media understand that politicians use social media to communicate with their supporters, and nothing else. So, traditional media usually ignores them (unless they say something clickbaity), and focuses what was said outside the social media. Perhaps the same could be applied in the US. Especially if Trump is indeed as narcissistic as he’s portrayed. When he realizes people don’t listen to him, he may change his methods of communication.
You can describe something without quoting it
And you can quote something without embedding it.
Maybe not quote, but embed. They should still quote noteworthy things on there, but don’t force us to interact with the site
but that’s what exactly embeds do. forcing you to interact with the site
Maybe I wasn’t clear in my comment. I think it’s fine if they quote what somebody tweeted. I don’t think it’s fine to have Twitter embeds in articles.
Come to think of it, I should write a uBlock origin custom rule
I see. wouldn’t the default disabled social blocking lists block that too?
another way is to have libredirect redirect the embeds to nitter. some instances still work
There is a filter list built in.
it was clear
I see. wouldn’t the default disabled social blocking lists block that too?
another way is to have libredirect redirect the embeds to nitter. some instances still work
You can always quote without giving the source. “Politician XY said that …”, instead of “Politician XY tweeted that …”
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.
Closed it. Viva la France!
My twitter account is just a link to my mastodon profile, with a script that posts a link to it every week or so to stop it getting banned for inactivity.
I actually can’t remember the last time I saw someone under 60 buy a newspaper. I think the cross over in the venn diagram is going to be pretty small.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Exactly. This is the only correct answer. Change.org petitions are as worthless as a 7 euros banknote.
Eh, BlueSky seems to be actually gaining some traction now, enough so that celebs and brands are jumping ship, so maybe just give it a few months and let it rot.
Don’t let the garbage sit until it rots. It will attract flies and possible more garbage.
Bsky has 20 million users, which is great, basically doubled in a month, but twitter has hundreds of millions of users. We talking a different order of magnitude.
Curves being what they are, these numbers don’t mean much. Yes twitter has more users but if bsky crosses some threshold, their user count can begin to catch up quickly.
How many bots and duplicate accounts on Twitter though?
While I definitely agree, enough momentum going both ways, alongside perhaps people choosing to leave Mastodon and Threads to go to the “winner of the alternatives” could sway this to a point where BlueSky is no longer the minnow here. Given that we’re only weeks detached from Trump’s win, I can only see it getting worse for Twitter, to the point where I can see Elon just selling it and moving on - perhaps even to BlueSky if Jack wanted a cut price deal.
FYI a lot of people on Lemmy use the fact Jack Dorsey was involved in Bluesky as a way to attack it, but that’s not super accurate.
He completely left bluesky a year ago and even deleted his account, he has no involvement with it whatsoever anymore.
He’s more of a fan of nostr, given how he is a crypto bro, that tracks.
I think they should just force him to disclose his shitty algorithm
Edit: Third party, local moderators for social media should also be a standard requirement. No outsourcing of moderation.
Obviously not what they have in use anymore, but for a golden few seconds the algorithm was open source: https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm
In few years we have moved from nonsensical Musk worshipping to nonsensical Musk hating.
There is a certain, disturbingly large, segment of the population which doesn’t even appear to attempt to think for themselves.
It’s like JK Rowling all over again.
we have moved to musk hating but i fail to see how all of it could be characterised as nonsensical; there are elements for sure
I never liked Musk, even when he was “In.” Even the Mars colonization meme rubbed me the wrong way, as the science does not line up with that.
It felt like a cult of personality to me. He was always a fickle jerk, a mixed bag.
You have a point though, people’s opinions were largely political, I think. Or just based on pure hope/cultism
Correction, we went from fanatical Elon worship to a sudden realization, that he’s the greatest scam artist of all time (quite literally, nobody EVER burned more tax payer and inverter money) and went into sudden shock and disbelief.
As much as I dislike Musk, expansion of the great firewall of Europe seems like a bad idea.
Does the article say anything about censorship? Usually bans like this are financial. So X offices would close in the EU and bank accounts seized and they wouldn’t be allowed to conduct business (eg with advertisers) in the EEA
It specifically cites Brazil as an example, that involved a complete block of the website.
More than that. The Brazil government made it illegal for it’s citizens to access the site, as well as the use of a VPN. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Twitter_in_Brazil, chapter ‘Blocking’).
I think it’s a swell idea, banning your citizens from reading information you decide is wrong.
+1
They should discourage institutions from using it (and use government Mastadon instances of course). This is honestly long overdue.
Yep they should keep fining him exponentially till he leaves (he obviously will never fall in line with EU rules)
They only need to expand it a little bit. Add a rule against Nazi websites, and enforce it. That’s not restrictive very much at all. Drag has gone drag’s entire life without relying on Nazi sites
Lol. That’s true. I suspect that Xitter doesn’t have the staff or engineering talent left to pivot to enforce any new rules internally. It should be possible to catch them in a constant automated ban without hitting anything worthwhile.
To operate there they would have to hire the staff back then, or not do so. That said, usually intent is all that matters, so if something gets through, so long as you showed efforts to prevent it and remove it in a reasonable manner, they would be fine.
Sure but an automated ban and manual review and removal could easily leave them blocked for more hours than not, each day.
Sure but, yeah.
I’m glad they at least name mastodon and not bluesky as an alternative.
Whats wrong with bluesky? Ive been using it fornthe past week and its definitely more intuitive and accessible for the average joe than Mastodon.
Blue sky has an owner and investors, right?
Publicly funded organizations should be required to use open solutions.
If they want to also replicate what they post somewhere open to BlueSky and Xitter, and Facebook, so be it.
That said, I could see carving out an exception for BlueSky if it provides the full open stack (public unauthenticated HTML, RSS, federation, etc ), and only while it does so.
A lot of people and outlets have said Bluesky is open source, which is actually false. Only the frontend is open source. That being said, they do use the AT Protocol which is still experimental, but seems like less of a mess than Activitypub.
I can’t run my own bluesky instance. Its literaly the same problem as X
Ah, a change.org petition . I eagerly await the sweeping improvements to life abroad.
Not going to sign it, too. Change.org is part of the problem, and not of the solution.
Just a casual bystander with no clue what’s going on… why’s change.org a problem?
Edit: ok, read more posts, understand now
I couldn’t find any posts talking about it, what’s wrong with it?
It’s like waving a disapproving finger at a brick wall, has always been my criticism.
Protests shouldn’t be so easily tossed in a bin. If you aren’t a problem, then no one has to listen to your message.
even if they do nothing about the petition, it still directly shows that people care about the issue. Its just one of the things that ever so slightly could tip the scales in right direction. But yes, if people think that its all done and good by signing the petition and nobody doing anything else, you might as well yell in the wind about it. But there could be people with a bit more influence that want to do this too. Even the surveys dont get information from every single person of the populace so having many signs could help even if they dont have to immidiately put it on effect.
Petitions in Europe are required to be discussed when they reach a certain threshold. The platform does not matter.
Do all that reach that threshold get discussed though?
Yes.
I read up on it but there doesn’t even seem to be a threshold: https://commission.europa.eu/get-involved/engage-eu-policymaking/petition-eu_en
Maybe I was confused with a specific country requiring a threshold. Or maybe there are thresholds for how high up it needs to get discussed.
Has any petition here ever actually lead to any change?
