i want it banned even if it doesnt
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
708 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
82227 readers
4334 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And ban Facebook too. It’s been breaking the law a lot longer!
More than half are ok with any company breaking the law?
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]
Lmao, if only
I say that, in order to save the species, ban all social media, everywhere.
That's literally not possible.
I'm not talking about from a practical standpoint I'm talking about from a theoretical standpoint.
Given that social media being a form of media where humans socialize with each other is not something that can be banned because humans are intrinsically social creatures and modern technology facilities media based communication.
What we don't need is social media banned. We need regulation and enforcement and teeth for those regulations.
Almost all of the bad and negative parts of social media are results of companies driving profits and engagement at the cost of everything else, including the well-being of their users (Such as artificially, inflating, negativity and division because that drives more engagement).
Make the platform liable for the hate posted on them. They have algorithms manipulating what we see, those same algorithms send those messages to us for profit.
Hence the justification form holding them liable for content. Civil suits will destroy them in no time.
but lemmy :(
I don't like the idea of "banning" users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.
I would like to know the percentage between if they break the law and regardless if they break the law
People know you can just not use it, right?
Not really if everyone else uses it and you need information from them
This is exactly why I'm against any regulation of any kind. Its up to the consumer to make those choices. Say if a baby food company put deadly amounts of arsenic in their food. That's those dead babies fault for not exercising their power as consumers. A bank steals all the money the customers put in? Shouldn't have picked that bank, tough luck. Buy life saving medicine from a pharmaceutical company and they send you sugar pills? Your fault.
Companies don't commit crimes and are never liable for them. Its on the people who choose to use them. Couldn't agree with you more. Well said.
I've been online to much today I took your comment at face value at first 😅
It's not just about not using it, it's about punishing a company breaking the law, profiting from it, and feeding an authoritarian regime.
Sure, but I don't really want to share a reality with people who do.
It's making them not right.
I mean, I'm aware I can simply not murder people, but I still want murdering people to be banned. (Admittedly this is a false equivalence but the point stands)
Weird to be that low for "continues to break the law."
They'll immediately ban "from the river to the sea" and prosecute everyone who says/displays it. but a multinational corporation is just allowed to break the law and maybe the politicians will at some point allowed them to face the law.
Uh. You do understand that this law breaking includes not cracking down hard enough on illegal content? Like that Hamas slogan?
I'm expressing how much their laws are bullshit. they are draconically applied on people protesting a genocide. while the question of "should the law be applied to corporations" is left open as a debatable topic.
Laws are made to protect the ingroup and bind the outgroup.
and even though it was an example of their hypocrisy and not the point of the argument I'll say it regardless
From the river to the sea Palestine will be free
From the sea to the river Palestine will live forever
Uh. So... Prosecuting bad. Not prosecuting those who do not cooperate with the prosecutors also bad because hypocrisy.
i don't think you get the point
I think you are just not making any sense.
Do you think maybe some laws can be bad and others good and that encouraging enforcement of a good law doesn't mean encouraging enforcement of the bad ones?
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.
not just banned, but there would be criminal charges brought on the owners.
Musk should be prosecuted for distribution of CSAM.
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.
I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned.
On what legal grounds would that happen?
Confiscate every server that X uses as evidence. Same thing you do with any CSAM case.
And how does that work legally?
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?
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.
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?
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)
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.
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
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.
load more comments
(1 reply)
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.
And there is our main argument against ChatControl.
What is?
I'd rather not see a great firewall of Europe.
I'd be happy to see them banned from doing business here though. Hit them where it hurts, their money.
Yes, I wish they would ban Tesla cars in Europe. That would be amazing.
load more comments
(1 reply)
How about we just fine them to oblivion and make the people responsible answer for their crimes?
How about we start throwing executives into jail starting with the top and working the way down?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Nearly half? Sheesh.
Maybe it's because most Europeans don't have a strong opinion about X. I really don't think it's quite as popular here as in the USA. Which is also the reason many don't know how unhinged the current admin is.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›