Elon Musk has until the end of Wednesday to respond to demands from Brussels to remove graphic images and disinformation linked to the violence in Israel from his social network X — or face the full force of Europe’s new social media rules.
Thierry Breton, the European Union commissioner who oversees the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) rules, wrote to the owner of X, formerly Twitter, to warn Musk of his obligations under the bloc’s content rules.
If Musk fails to comply, the EU’s rules state X could face fines of up to 6 percent of its revenue for potential wrongdoing. Under the regulations, social media companies are obliged to remove all forms of hate speech, incitement to violence and other gruesome images or propaganda that promote terrorist organizations.
Since Hamas launched its violent attacks on Israel on October 7, X has been flooded with images, videos and hashtags depicting — in graphic detail — how hundreds of Israelis have been murdered or kidnapped. Under X’s own policies, such material should also be removed immediately.
If that is Net Revenue, I have some bad news for the EU. 🤣🤣🤣
I think you’re thinking of profits, which is revenue minus costs.
EU fines are a percentage of global revenue, which means all the money you make in any way, anywhere in the world, before subtracting any bullshit.
Which was $4.4 billion in 2022 and some estimate to be roughly $3 billion for 2023, so the maximum fine would be 180-264 million depending on which figure is used.
For comparison, the net loss (not profit) for 2022 for twitter was 270 million.
The “brilliance” of Elon’s plan: he is impervious to EU fines because he doesn’t make any money.
This is some “quality” reporting. Nowhere does the EU says to remove “graphic violent images”, it’s only asking for transparency in what gets removed and the removal of disinformation and calls to violence.
The better would have been to ban Twitter. People and politics have to understand you can’t talk with irrational people.
deleted by creator
Except it does matter if it’s on Twitter or on a lesser-known platform. Propaganda works when it is widely publicized and doesn’t work as well when it isn’t.
Twitter still has a responsibility before the law to deal with this kind of stuff and it doesn’t follow that.
Maybe not, but those sites have way less of a userbase
Yeah but no one cares if it’s on 4chan. You expect it.
That’s irking to limiting press freedom if gruesome photos and videos are forbidden. That ain’t good, EU!
Get out of here with your silly US-centric idea of “absolute free speech”. Pretty much every civilized country in the world has boundaries to what is considered acceptable.
And even the US does (though they are fewer than elsewhere, granted).
But for some reason the US has produced this myth that absolute freedom of speech (which it doesn’t have) somehow is the best possible choice (which it isn’t).
A free press is hardly a US-centric idea.
Absolute minus nipples.
My favourite is “absolute free speech!!” combined with “if you say something someone doesn’t like, they are entitled to punch you”
Or “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” lmao but then it’s not [absolute] free speech
No, you don’t understand, it’s easy:
- if the government punishes you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
- if woke Twitter cancels you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
- if a far-right/Republican shoots you down for what you said, it’s just the consequences of your Free Speech™
- if you’re writing a book about sexual education, it’s not Free Speech™ anymore, and you should be censored
Easy, huh? /s
Its freedom of speech from the government not carte blanche to say what you want.
Granted even that is still slightly restricted.
It baffles me that y’all are ok with being muzzled.
Straight talk time.
Those images should be posted and not removed.
People need to see what is happening for them to react.
Pictures and videos proved the holocaust to the world.
Pictures and videos got the us out of Vietnam
People need to see things that make them viscerally uncomfortable.
The only images the EU asked to have removed are images from unrelated conflicts and video games portrayed as geniune images of the current events, so blatant disinformation.
It’s in the request made by the EU. The Politico article made up the part where all graphic images are to be removed.
The concept of absolute freedom of speech is based on lessons learned in history and even the present. As soon as you start limiting speech you have to draw a line and nobody can agree on where that line should be. The real issue however, is that it’s ultimately government that decides.
A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that’s a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.
There’s definitely consequences to unhinderred free speech but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.
So…
You think it should be legal for any random person to stand outside your house with a megaphone telling everyone that you’re a child abuser and the only way to protect the kids is to immediately kill you?
A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that’s a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.
The life hack we use in Europe is that we have more than two parties and a functioning electoral system, so the regulatory capture of corporations and their fascist leaning CEOs is only partial. That makes it easier to draw the line where people want it to, since we can vote out our government.
The lesson learned from history, at least when it came to drafting the German Basic Law in 1948/49, is that freedom of speech must bow to the sanctity of human dignity, as does everything else.
This is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
As in A is like B is like C […] is like Z.
In the case at hand, no one is talking about censoring someone’s spicy take on bidenomics - is a binary question of “is this image likely to support extremism”.
History does not show that censoring this type of material leads to an autocracy.
On the flip side, i learned from the finest Free Speech Absolutist that absolute free speech is absolute bullshit, as it’s less about free speech and more about my speech.
but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.
Like, when? What are some examples? Back up your bullshit.
Under the regulations, social media companies are obliged to remove all forms of hate speech, incitement to violence and other gruesome images or propaganda that promote terrorist organizations.
The gruesome images part is only said by Politico. Read the original open letter. The EU is not complaining about the images hurting their sensibilities by being too gruesome, but that they are either from different conflicts or straight up from video games.
The EU is not offended by the gruesomeness of the images, but by the fact that they are lies. Politico is reporting inaccurately at best on this.
“removing my propaganda is against my freedumb of speech!!!”
Talking about spreading misinformation and media containing violence.
*Yawn…fascists demand platform…something, something, freeze peach
The EU isn’t saying that violent photos are to be removed. The letter is asking for removal of disinformation and transparency into what gets removed.
Politico seems to have made up the part you’re complaining about.
Limiting (islamo-)fascist propaganda is good. Freedom of speech is a social contract. You only get to keep your freedom of speech if you don’t use it to grossly infringe the rights of others.
