Crossposting here as I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom

  • Dalaryous@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    So funny to see how a media campaign gets so many sheep following and beleiving without questioning. All they have to scream is fascist repadidly and sheep will repeat.

    While government was in control of Twitter and silenced and censored harvard educated doctors and professors about Covid to push the vaccine and make billions, nobody screamed Twitter was fascist. Or did you forget the twitter files? Suddendly twitter is bad once gov censorship is gone but Facebook/Threads is ok because things gov wants to censor is being censored.

    I’m not saying social media is not bad and yes, needs to be controlled but seriously use a little bit of your brain before blindly repeating someone else’s words. Learn history, see a bit from other angles and maybe think a bit why Twitter is being singled out right now.

    Social media is bad but lack of critical thinking is way way worse.

  • soyboy77@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    On a related note: does anybody think that Nostr will ever gain real traction? Promising project, I try it again every other month but it’s still pretty rough…

    Also: the fact that Dorsey has funded it and is a fan concerns me.

  • HailSeitan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Ban surveillance advertising and help speed the demise of the site, or mandate interop and make it easy for those still on it to take their followers with them, but holy fuck bro—calling for a government to ban a communications platform for an entire continent?

  • Fusty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Why do you people talk about defending and supporting democracy, but never talk about that the population has a right to vote for anti-government people? Democracy is about following the will of the people, and if the majority of the people vote to cut government, eliminate government, and start taking powers away from government rule, democracy says to follow the vote of the people.

    • R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Because we have to defend democracy or it will be eroded. We should not stand by idly as misinformation and corporate interests continue to cripple it. Just because people are voting against their best interests does not mean they are no longer their best interests.

      • INeedMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Don’t get me wrong, I agree that sometimes freedom has to fight for itself

        have to defend democracy or it will be eroded

        Are we sure this is going to happen? Or it is possible that we got convinced on that by people who don’t care about democracy, only want to be in charge?

          • Fusty@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            I already said that I get it. You are very clear in your specious statement and I thoroughly understand.you.

  • idefix@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Musk has openly supported right-wing politicians such as Trump and Meloni in Italy

    Not right-wing, far right. Or fascists. Even though Meloni is much more coherent than Trump so it’s difficult to put both of them in the same basket.

  • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Let me guess, you think Russia/China/etc. banning websites is bad (because obviously they are doing it due to being authoriatarian regimes and to not let people learn the truth), and EU (or generally any western country) banning websites is good (because obviously it would be done to protect democracy and people from consuming dangerous misinformation)?
    Did I miss anything? :)

    • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yes, you missed how social media algorithms work, having captivated the attention of whole nations, and carefully control every bit of information that pass in front of your eyes, then some billionaire buying said mechanism and taking part in the government he helped elected, then threatening the nations that have banned him that they will lose the next elections. Did I miss anything?

      Real democracies need to shield themselves from this kind of corporate interference, yet most people don’t even understand how it works, or why Cambridge Analytica was a big hit, or where are these experts now and how they are making a living.

      • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Yeah, so just as I said - good guys banning social medias is good because they are the good guys protecting the democracy against bad people and so on, and bad guys banning social medias is bad because they are the bad guys censoring the truth from oppressed people or something.

        No hypocrisy here :)

        • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          This is not a matter of opinion, rather than centralized control of information.

          Musk can shadow ban you, for example, nobody granted him that power except he was able to by it.

          This type of social media are a power structure that is despotic in nature, and it is deeply problematic for democracies.

          It is not like a nation state banning a religious minority or an anarchist site. That would be censoring of opinions.

          In the case of Xitter, it is Musk and a team of political advertising engineers doing the censorship. So they are worse than Nazi apologists for example. The latter we only anticipate they will impose censorhip (let alone murder) once they are in power.

          Xitter has that power already at orders of magnitude above what traditional media outlets have. He controls the flow of information. (And he made it a fucking nazi bar right enough).

          But I will grant you that we should not expect nation states to ban Xitter. We should aim for its destruction.

          • 9bananas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            you’re arguing government action with a user that hails from “@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org”.

            i don’t foresee a fruitful discussion, mate…

    • tekato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Pointing out their hypocrisy will not help anybody. The best you can do is sit down and watch this comedy from the sidelines.

      • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Pointing out their hypocrisy will not help anybody.

        I choose to, perhaps naively, think that some people might actually recognize how absurd this is, and hopefully change their opinion :)

        The best you can do is sit down and watch this comedy from the sidelines.

        Just “watching comedy from the sidelines” can result in one day waking up in a totalitarian hell :/
        (Not that my shitposting will change much of course :/)

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    The EU can and should ban government and business’s from using twitter as part of their official communications. But if private citizens wants to tweet, then sure go for it, even the EU with it’s less then stellar speech record, particularly with the labeling antisemitism, still allows freedom of association.

      • XTL@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Blocking, yes. Bans can be more, though. When poor opsec gets you defenestrated or shipped to an offshore entertainment facility, it’s a bit more than an inconvenience.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I mean, it’s a controversial one but if citizens want it then why not? I see some people here saying that banning it would be a bad decision for the government but in case of a petition, they’re not doing it because they want to but because their voters told them to.

    Also I don’t have much against such a radical approach to improving privacy. Most people nowadays can’t be made to care or do something. They can only be forced. Though such enforcement can make them vote against that government but that’s up to demographic researchers to analyze.

  • felsiq@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Fuck that platform, if it dies right now the world will be a better place overnight. That being said, I’m against it being banned - imo if we’re petitioning for anything, it should be to get governments off of it and onto better alternatives.

  • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Don’t think it’s a good thing to ban anything from anywhere. The best way is to make them realize how bad mainstreams socials are bad. Everyone is concerned about the Elon Musk’s social but nobody care when GAMAM harvest your datas

  • Viri4thus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    “I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom.”

    *uses change.org instead of the EU mechanism to submit petitions to the parliament…

    This has to have been made by an American living in Europe.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Idk why a ban is necessary. Just remove some of the protections so they can be held liable for things they should be held liable for.

    They’re currently not liable for third-party content (if they have reasonable moderation policies and respond in a timely manner to requests, yada yada). But if they promote it, they are no longer a passive hosting platform; they are actively promoting content so should be held proportionately liable for that content.