It's eye opening watching these massive government organizations going after the only platform that has open sourced their algorithm and has publicly revealed the massive governmental overreach in a social media company.
When people say we're living in the information age it's not just some hokey platitude. The (amount, speed, distance) of information travel is something that's been thrust upon us and how we as a society deal with whatever happens as a consequence is something that's still in its infancy.
The phrase "sticks and stones" was coined in 1844 when by all reasonable account words has a real tangible limit on how much they could follow and hurt you.
Even if I agreed with you (that "racism and misinformation" were reasonable grounds for censorship), we've seen again and again, every single time, that when racism and misinformation become justification for censorship, the scope of "racism and misinformation" immediately grows to encompass whatever happens to be out of fashion right now - subject to change as styles and opinions change. In this case, it's grown to encompass evidence of war crimes.
It's a delicate balance. I'm very much for freedom of speech. But it's a problem in the modern age. People use it for effectively disabling speech by using a denial of service attack through buckets of misinformation.
E.g. a ridiculously corrupt official just spewing misinformation about his rivals to avoid accountability. In the past the press would have been a barrier. Nixon tried to do that and failed.
Misinformation can drown out legitimate information in this situation. We need safeguards to stop that. It's super easy to see when looking at pre-Musk Twitter and the current state of X. Old twitter had terrible people on it. No doubt. The volume is now unbearable. Those facts are proven statistically and are plain to see...
Free speech is a tool that was invented in the age of the quill. We curtailed it in the past e.g. fire in a crowded theater, copyrights and defamation. It needs additional stopgaps for the modern age.
I understand the distrust in government, mine sucks... So I get that. It's a choice between bad and worse...
Free speech is not an actual problem in the modern age, or any age. The volume is bearable. I see very little misinformation in my feed. And let's not forget how pre-Musk Twitter actively suppressed accurate information at the request of the US federal government.
I'm sure the Rohingya people would have an issue with these assertions. Currently misinformation is disseminated by elected officials who then regurgitate it back and forth with social networks. There's now a concept of "picking what's true" which is ludicrous. People can't even agree on the facts due to the levels of misinformation.
Looking at your own feed and projecting it as an absolute fact for the general public is a problematic assertion. The main problem with social networks is that people can lock themselves within a disinformation bubble that bounces the lie back and forth.
Have you actually asked the Rohingya people what they think, or have you appointed yourself as their spokesperson? They are not suffering because of free speech. They are suffering because they live in a failed state which has multiple ongoing internal violent conflicts and which is ruled by a corrupt, incompetent junta. If they EU was serious about improving the situation there (and in other conflict zones) then they would take direct action instead of pretending to help by imposing pointless, symbolic restrictions on US-based social media companies. It's obvious that what the EU is doing here is just a political farce to convince the gullible that they're doing something rather than spending any money or taking any risks.
Yes, there are other worse problems. But misinformation ISN'T free speech. Just like an anti-democracy organization using democracy to cancel elections isn't democratic.
You're equating speech anarchy with free speech. They are not the same.
The US Supreme Court and I disagree with you: speech anarchy is the same as free speech. Attempts to block misinformation inevitably turn out worse than the misinformation itself.
I don't live in the USA so no. The US Supreme court took both sides e.g. "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a limit on free speech by the supreme court. Copyright is upheld by the supreme court, etc.
I give thanks every day that I live in the USA where we have a written Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court with the courage to stand against government overreach.
Your country is banning books... I suggest learning a bit about other countries. The reality is freedom of speech is always a tradeoff in every country. There's always a line. The USA draws it inconsistently and erratically all the time.
I would never want to live in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I love your country. But a country that can just go on about the second amendment after the murder of school children isn't a place I would ever call home.
The letter is from the EC , not from a regulator . I also don't like that it's attacking the messenger. Fake news have been circulated by large news networks recently (people don't believe what they see on twitter at face value, but they do when it's retweeted by reputable news sources)
Large news organizations are accountable for this and print corrections on misinformation. People lost their jobs in the past... The scale between the misinformation there and in the general social network isn't really comparable.
I expect the EU commission to direct their requests at the publisher. I expect publishers to respond. In short, business as usual. Federation of publishers doesn't change anything in that regard.
As far as the EU is concerned, TwitterX is the publisher. You can't possibly expect them to go after publishers of state sponsored propaganda or jihadi movement recruting content, it's unproductive.
> We do not have free speech in constitution, like US.
Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter. Granted, these may not allow the expression of the things you mentioned. (And I am not sure whether the Constitution in the U.S. either allows inciting violence.)
> Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter.
not really. it's freedom of expression, but with major caveats:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold
opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring
the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be
subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law
and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and
impartiality of the judiciary.
Of course, only a few of the rights (freedoms) are absolute (even in the US). Note also that the European Convention on Human Rights is not a 1:1 equivalent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2) Essentially means that distribution of 'objectionable material' should be proportionate to the public's interest in such material.
Eg. spreading state secrets would be illegal, but if such secrets would show things like war crimes, publication may be okay (whistleblowing) given the public's interest in knowing those crimes.
Imagery of gore / killings etc follows those same lines. Traditional media tend to be conservative there, and self-censor on the side of caution. Social media... not so much. Likes!
On a side note, I suspect many a politician would like to blur the line between graphic imagery & misinformation. That's intellectually dishonest imho:
Imagery can be extremely graphic, yet simply show what happened. And sometimes, it may be appropriate for the public to view such content. I rarely have any objection there as long as viewers are warned what they're about to see. Whether you'd want to distribute such material, is a matter of (bad) taste.
And otoh, one could have harmless-looking content that is 100% bs / misinformation. Possibly dangerous too. Removal of such material brings a host of issues concerning grey areas, who's to decide what's true, whether material is fake or not (and how to determine), what sources are 'trustworthy', etc etc. Flagging (but leaving available) seems a better approach there.
Leaving the remove option for things like copyright violations, calls to violence, etc.
> not really. it's freedom of expression, but with major caveats:
So... just like in the US ?
> In the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by precedents set in various legal cases. There are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,fighting words, fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct
Americans and their "muh freedom of speech" comments are the funniest thing ever, yours isn't absolute, like everywhere else, it's been proven times and times over
> Americans and their "muh freedom of speech" comments are the funniest thing ever,
be careful with comments that tend to assume things.
i'm not american, don't live in america. the comment was about Europe and their "free speech", which in effect is much less "free" than in the US.
major differences between the US and EU when it comes to "free speech":
Absolute vs. Qualified Right:
US: The First Amendment offers strong protection against government censorship. While there are limitations (e.g., incitement to imminent lawless action, obscenity, certain kinds of hate speech), the U.S. generally offers wider latitude for free speech compared to many other countries.
EU: The right to freedom of expression in the EU is a qualified right. Article 10 of the ECHR itself provides that the exercise of this freedom "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." Reasons can include interests of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, preventing disorder or crime, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and reputations of others.
Hate Speech:
US: Hate speech, unless it directly incites violence or imminent harm, is generally protected by the First Amendment. However, this protection does not extend to private institutions or platforms which can set their own speech regulations.
EU: Hate speech is less tolerated in the EU, and many member states have laws that criminalize speech that incites violence, hatred, or discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, and more.
Libel and Defamation:
US: To win a defamation case, public figures must prove that the statement was false and that it was made with "actual malice" – meaning the person knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
EU: Defamation laws vary among EU member states, but the threshold for proving defamation is generally lower than in the U.S., especially for private individuals.
Limitations and Restrictions:
US: Limitations on speech often relate to time, place, and manner rather than content. There are also laws against obscenity, child pornography, false advertising, and speech that incites imminent harm.
EU: The EU and its member states have implemented various laws that can restrict speech for reasons including public order, morals, and protection of individual reputation.
Digital Platforms:
US: Private digital platforms (e.g., social media sites) are not bound by the First Amendment and can set their own content policies.
EU: The EU has been more proactive in regulating digital platforms, such as enforcing the right to be forgotten or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There is also more emphasis on combating fake news and misinformation.
Cultural Differences:
Cultural and historical contexts drive some of these differences. For instance, Europe's experience with fascism and hate-driven ideologies in the 20th century has influenced its stricter stance on hate speech.
Restricting publishing videos of world changing events, which make it clear what actually happened, is the opposite of free speech. Publishing videos of others commiting acts of violence is not inciting violence. Please read 1984 to help prevent changes in meanings of words.
The EU Commission letter has a few examples. Easy enough for a moderation team to spot, if there was a moderation team in place. Complaining that it is difficult is no reason to skip moderation altogether.
Shouldn't they address Yaccarino, the actual CEO? I am aware that Musk still very much pulls the strings but if this is an official communication, official channels should be used? I'm not sure, the whole thing is just weird to me.
But I do not actually disagree with the content. Content moderation is definitely an issue Musk tries to ignore.
Thierry Breton, the author of the letter, appears to have a personal grudge against Elon Musk, and has directed several aggressive ultimatums towards him such as, "In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules," "You can run but you can't hide" and "Our teams will be ready for enforcement."
Breton is set to be the next EU Commissioner, succeeding Ursula Van Der Leyden.
I can get the frustration when someone whose job it is to enforce the law repeatedly comes up against someone in the public eye who openly flaunts their violation of the law wearing a shirt that says "make me" where other companies that have sane compliance departments just follow the law and course-correct when it's pointed out without the need for a big lawsuit.
Big, "I shouldn't have to keep wasting my time on this" energy.
If such a person is "frustrated" then it sounds like they don't actually have the power they claim to have, or, they would just file that "big lawsuit". And, if this is really his job, and he has the power to litigate this, then certainly this is what he should be "wasting" his time on, should it not?
You have an oddly efficient view of "government agency sues $company for doing obviously horrible thing." These lawsuits drag on for ages, become huge political battles, and are a just a huge expenditure of resources for everyone involved that it's saved as a last resort.
I don't think you would like living in a world where things like this could be settled swiftly and decisively. Having a government where voluntary compliance is the expected norm and applying real force takes time and resources is a feature not a bug.
Why should people and corporations voluntarily comply with stupid laws which limit freedom of expression? It would be better if everyone drags things out to the extent that those laws become unenforceable. In general, given that the EU itself is so fundamentally flawed, anything that undermines the power of EU bureaucrats and wastes their time is probably a net positive.
You just need to look at Twitter's downward slope towards the misinformation abyss to recognize the expected results of unmoderated expression. Bad actors take advantage of this freedom to drive up clicks with little regard for accuracy or nefarious side effects. If that only affects the platform, it requires no action from government: let Twitter circle the drain onto oblivion. If negative externalities affect society as a whole, intervention is required.
In short: freedom of expression isn't an absolute right. The EU is correct, blatantly false posts should be suppressed. Twitter should have a moderation team, twitter MUST have someone answer take-down requests.
Nah, I don't need to look at anything. I see little or no misinformation in my feed. If you see a lot then you're probably using it wrong.
Freedom of expression isn't absolute, but should be close to it. The EU (or constituent national governments) should adopt the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. We have an existence proof that it works better than whatever unprincipled, haphazard policies they happen to pursue.
Neither is the naked assertion "We have an existence proof." Especially in the context of a 250-year-old country stacked up against thousands-of-years-old countries.
England has a monarchy going back thousands of years. Meanwhile, I think it remains to be seen if the younger governments failed to learn the right lessons from the US or have learned from the US's mistakes.
We shall see. Probably on the next quarter century, given how precarious the political situation is in the US right now.
I don't need to look at anything because I already see my feed every day. There's no confirmation bias involved.
The correct way to use X is to follow high-quality accounts and like their posts. Mute or block low-quality accounts (including those reposted by accounts you do follow). Never read the replies as they are almost entirely junk.
The wheels of EU enforcement grind slow, but exceeding fine (eg the recent 1.2bn eur fine for Facebook was as a result of behaviour from 2020 onwards), so there's something to be said for warning someone off bad behaviour rather than just launching an enforcement action, because the enforcement action will probably take _years_.
EU fines have to be paid immediately and are transferred directly to the Commission's budget (making them a huge conflict of interest). Then, if you want, you can try to appeal and get your money back. That's the part that takes years.
This is the other way around to how law works in real democracies, where the government must actually win a case first before being able to levy punishment. But it's normal to be confused. The EU constitution dresses itself in the language and idioms of democracy without actually having the core spirit of it.
That is one plausible scenario, but another is that Breton, by all accounts, an arrogant, petty autocrat, is simply attempting to impose his will, not just on Musk, but everyone else. The words he has chosen to use suggests the latter may be closer to the truth.
I mean, maybe? But who was the leader of the Soviet Union in early World War 2? Like, obviously, for all practical purposes, it was Stalin, and he was treated as such. But he was never the head of state, and he wasn't the head of government until 1941. At a certain point, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person who actually is in charge, is in charge, and ignore the figurehead altogether.
A CEO isn't really a particularly well-defined position under companies law anyway, in most cases. It's whatever the board says it is.
I see no practical reason for doing so. There's one owner who has daily involvement and final decision making power that is often exercised. Of course they'd address it to him.
if you care to see twitter replaced you would regularly go to twitter and make sure it doesn't have unique, value-add content and migrate that content to a platform you deem more worthy.
finger wagging and boycotting a free-to-use website seems like nothing more than virtue signalling.
> "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" refers to a panel from a comic by Matt Bors in which a medieval peasant says "We should improve society somewhat" while a modern man, emerging from a well, replies, "Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent." The comic has been popularly used as a retort to people who imply one can't make complaints about capitalism or other aspects of social life while participating in those systems.
What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news.
If people saw the shear brutality and horror the only heads that would fly would be of the politicians and media that exploit conflicts for a profit.
But we can't have that. EU made sure its 'illegal' and that people need to be 'protected' from viewing the fallout of our policies.
Through out the history suppressing alternative points of view was never about protecting anything it was always about staying in power. This is no different.
> What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news.
idk if I remember them all but I've seen:
"hamas beheaded 40 babies!!!" > turns out it was 40 people, including babies, some decapitated
"hamas use trebuchets to send dead bodies" > no proof besides a very low res pic
"hamas dismember hostages by attaching them to two trucks and making them go opposite direction" > the picture was from a youtube thumbnail of a truck pulling duel, a body had been photoshoped on the rope between the two trucks
"hamas put children in cages" > turns out the video was from Syria years ago
"israel knew about it was going to be attacked but let it happen for political clout" > ok buddy but good luck proving that
The real stories are awful enough, I don't even get why people come up with these fake ones, there are real pics/vids of beheading, dead kids, &c. Even the real graphic content is getting pushed away by fake ones which sound more outlandish, people want their dose of atrocities
I think it helps them justify any atrocities committed in the counterattack. Seeing a lot of jubilation on Reddit regarding the impending suffering of 2m civilians, and the “40 dead babies”, etc. are regularly brought up in defense of these feelings.
I'll let people chose their flavor of terrorism and war crimes on their own. I'm far from pro hamas, we had enough islamist attacks in my country to know what they're like, at least zionists keep their terror attacks in a relatively small geographicical area
> many social media users share misleading or baseless claims, including miscaptioned imagery or altered documents, in an effort to shape public perception.
It’s way more likely people are posting videos of paragliders etc. to farm engagement due to financial incentives. Very telling that a news organization states that the sharing of information is an effort to shape public perception.
Big Brother please tell exactly what I'm supposed to think. Is it a justified war of liberation and decolonization by the Palestinians or is it another senseless bout of terrorism against the peaceful state of Israel?
What you see on twitter is virtually never coming from first sources. Telegram would be a much better place to look at, and twitter isn't the internet archive.
The problem isn't even the propaganda or the aftermath videos themselves, it's the fake ones and the misattributed ones
Dear EU: I disagree about "hosting illegal content". What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments. Rather than covering up what a tragedy war is, how about we work to avoid it?
Maintaining freedom of expression is always of primary importance regardless of any negative consequences. There are only a very few limited circumstances where suppressing that is valid.
> What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments.
If it was only about sharing graphic content I'd be on your side, but for every "uncomfortable" image you have 300 bot accounts spreading straight up fabricated images and information
The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today
Twitter is the last link of information before going on CNN &co, it's garbage tier in every aspect you can think of and there are dozens of better places to see uncomfortable and unfiltered content. People think they get the truth there but they're just one layer down in the thousands layer onion of misinformation
> The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today
That is my takeaway as well. Every feature of the site is abused at scale to flood the zone with shit. It's like trying to have a discussion inside of a wind tunnel.
> However, this is what major news outlets do, usually at the request of a political party or faction
Of course that's why both should be avoided like the plague. Self proclaimed free thinkers who moved from fox/cnn to twitter.com/elonmusk and think the get the real truth™ are as dumb as it gets
I hear this criticism but it always seems to be from people who claim to rarely go on Twitter. I use it all the time and see basically zero bot content. My feed is full of high quality info and it's been a far better source than most mainstream news over the past few days. Faster, more nuanced, and quicker to self-correct. Community Notes seem, on balance, pretty effective.
Is there a non-screenshot version available of this?
The first point is about having clear policies and consistent/predictable application there-of. Thierry talks about a change regarding "latest changes in public interest policies"... does anyone have a link or information on what Twitter changed?
The second point is about timely & objective takedowns of illegal content. Third is "proportionate and effective mitigation measures to tackle the risks to public security and civil discourse stemming from disinformation."
I guess I need to dive in and read it, but the asks here make me feel the Digital Services Act demands a perfect utopian system. They are murky enough so that there is zero way I could ever be in the clear, feel confident; someone will always be accusing me of inconsistently applying my policies, or someone will always be able to say that this post or that post means I am not stemming disinformation actively enough.
It's quite the turn, but I am interested & somewhat excited to see a world where these topics are up for discussion, where there's some light on how & where these happen. But I worry that nothing is good enough, that we could have councils of wisened elders (in a diverse array of languages, with express & direct access to local cultural experts & fact checkers) approving every post that - no matter how we try - we're going to do a pretty shabby job of a lot of this. The asks don't feel moderate; they feel infinite, and feel like the asks could only be satisfied in a fantastic Utopia where everything makes sense & everyone works together. But what I do like is that these important issues are up for discussion, that we have to have some discourse about them, that they don't get to remain invisible implicit decisions within medium & large social media organizations forever.
Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean? If the EU actually cared about this topic, they would hire a bunch of people to use the already_existing community notes feature. Of course this is implying they care about the topic, which is probably irrelevant to them. They just want control of information because both sides in this war act scummy and inhumane. Of course if they were to do this they would get challenged by every other user who wants to "fact check", which rightfully dilutes their appearance of authority of truth.
It's 2023 and people still don't understand the premise of government censorship. Guess what: deleting misinformation is still censorship, it does not attack the issue itself; it only probably antagonizes the people who put said (false or not) information, and 'downgrades' the filter of the people who are actually interested in the truth. The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. We've been over this with covid already. You don't even have to be an optimist to notice that, most often than not, truth eventually comes out. And what's more interesting is that the more open and free a medium of information/discussion is, the >faster< it gets out. This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. Fabricating things not rooted in reality is harder and impossible to maintain.
> Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean?
EU regulators.
> The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging.
> This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings.
uh nope:
"The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities."
> "The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities."
>- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re...
I'm aware of those frankly tragic episodes. But ask yourself this: is the problem the fact that simply misinfo was put on FB or the fact that there wasn't enough counter-balancing information available? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or downplay the situation, but the fact is that a lot of places suffer "from misinfo" because the only info available is misinfo. The human mind is inherently a curious mind. And as i've stated in my first comment, people tend to follow info from trains of thought that make sense(are logical)[yes, even if we're talking about religion/etc.): the contents of the information matters, how cohesive it is, how it attacks the false claims. I would argue that a big lie does not even need a "big truth" to be debunked, it only needs a well-thought question to instill the skepticism required for the lie to not be taken as plain truth.
Closing thoughts: in third-world regions: the ones you've mentioned, russia, "china"(on the freedom of information/liberty front), etc. the issue of misinformation is not really that misinformation exists; but actually that it is mainly the only information that exists, and there's not enough balancing "truth"/skepticism. You might think i'm silly or that i'm arguing for misinfo(that wouldn't suit me by the way), but I live in an ex-communist country: I've had some relative contact on how the centralized government used to push actual misinformation and how people took it as blind truth. After the said government(s) failed, people usually became more skeptical about all kinds of information(a good thing to do). Those people are the generation of my parents for example, a dying breed, and it should not come as a surprise that every subsequent generation that came after and took all news as "facts" became usually dumber, less rational, and more naive.
the propagation of misinformation is asymmetrical. a single person or group of people will not have the resources to counterbalance misinfo when its bankrolled by state actors or malicious groups who use it as a weapon. additionally, it's a lot harder to deconstruct a heavily-propagated lie and to educate people than it is to manufacture outrage (eg https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/1...).
what you're describing is an ideal world where everyone thinks and acts rationally and is willing to change their views when new information is presented. that is far from reality. in short, propaganda works for a reason.
My position is not incoherent at all, or at least I don't think it is. Let me be more explicit: if EU deems the problem of misinfo is actually such an important thing on X, then it should itself go ahead and "fact-check" the said misinfo on X through Community Notes. This is not government censorship, because other people can also get involved in the process. I don't see how these 2 things are contradicting at all. Granted we're not talking about removing content, which realistically should only be done in very few scenarios: illegal content(CP, that sort of stuff). I'm pretty sure if actual misinfo were to be posted and debunked through a system like community notes, the outcome in the eyes of the public would be better than simply removing said material(which reinforces skepticism and negative attitude towards the authorities/companies among the skeptics).
>The EU is asking Twitter to define their own moderation policies and enforce them.
The EU wants a lot of things that aren't feasible. This is one of them. Elon stated plenty of times that the platform should not censor or moderate more speech than necessary. This position turns out to be "harmful" in the eyes of EU, because like the bureaucrats they are, they need everything under control or determined to be under scrutiny a priori(by labeling speech by certain criterias). Imagine a new form of content that does not fall under any current regulation/moderation policies. By default it should not be problematic, because it's not "illegal". Thus my point: what EU deems misinfo/illegal is a slippery slope and will never, ever be satisfied. Unless of course we include a whole lot of nothing-speech.
>So which is it? You want government to do this or private companies?
Neither, or both. Depends if you think my answer is actual "moderation"(or censorship/removal of speech) or providing context in the form of fact-checking(community notes or whatever). If governments want to "fact-check" they should go ahead and do it. Otherwise if they simply just demand that the private company or they themselves(through some intermediaries) want speech removed, that's plain text censorship.[A little note: it's worse than that, you de facto have an actual fascist collusion between the state and private enterprises].
I see your point, and I guess it's not incoherent after all.
For myself, I see a grey area of information, which, while it may not be illegal, can be considered as harmful to people.
If the EU wanted to censor everything they disagree with, they would declare it illegal. That would be overreach in my opinion.
I however don't see it as unreasonable to ask that companies providing a platform take steps to protect their users from some kinds of information and are clear about what steps they will take to do so.
Maybe a slippery slope there, but equally having no moderation carries its own real harms.
Here is what Community Notes said, feels like this is a good thing to address moderation issues...
-------------
Thank you to all the contributors who’ve been active over the last few days, helping to keep people on X informed. We wanted to share some of the impact of your work:
• In just three days, you wrote notes seen tens of millions of times.
• More than 500 unique notes relating to the attacks and unfolding events are being shown on X.
• Because of the new "notes on media" feature, these notes display on an additional 3000+ posts. This number grows automatically if the relevant images and video are re-used in new posts.
• Notes related to the attacks cover a wide range of topics from out-of-context war footage, to unrelated or outdated protest/celebration videos, to fake videos made with game simulators, to claims of US funding related to conflict, to claims about specific events having taken place in the conflict, and more.
I'm wondering if we're talking about the right thing...
T. Breton is talking about EUROPE's REGULATION, not freedom of speech! And it's his job...
So:
* if you live in Europe (so are submitted to Europe's Laws):
- either you're European and if you dont like European Laws you need to vote for people with different opinions,
- or you're not European and then... well... leave Europe
* if you dont live in Europe then... all this doesn't matter to you! You won't be impacted so... why commenting and trying to explain what is wrong about European Laws ?
As somebody who has the misfortune to be living in Russia in this time, I have a very clear opinion on internet censorship and demands to prevent 'misinformation': kill it with fire.
Once the government gets to decide what's true and what's not, your country is no longer free. If the government wants to fight misinformation, it should disclose more information. If the government has an ability to silence anyone, this ability will be used to silence information harmful to the government.
130 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 198 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843274
(just check facebook ad reports. EU is constanty the top political spender in my country)
X demonstrates plainly the importance of regulation.
The phrase "sticks and stones" was coined in 1844 when by all reasonable account words has a real tangible limit on how much they could follow and hurt you.
E.g. a ridiculously corrupt official just spewing misinformation about his rivals to avoid accountability. In the past the press would have been a barrier. Nixon tried to do that and failed.
Misinformation can drown out legitimate information in this situation. We need safeguards to stop that. It's super easy to see when looking at pre-Musk Twitter and the current state of X. Old twitter had terrible people on it. No doubt. The volume is now unbearable. Those facts are proven statistically and are plain to see...
Free speech is a tool that was invented in the age of the quill. We curtailed it in the past e.g. fire in a crowded theater, copyrights and defamation. It needs additional stopgaps for the modern age.
I understand the distrust in government, mine sucks... So I get that. It's a choice between bad and worse...
(edited to fix a couple of grammar mistakes)
Looking at your own feed and projecting it as an absolute fact for the general public is a problematic assertion. The main problem with social networks is that people can lock themselves within a disinformation bubble that bounces the lie back and forth.
Trying to help is hard. See the case of Somalia.
Yes, there are other worse problems. But misinformation ISN'T free speech. Just like an anti-democracy organization using democracy to cancel elections isn't democratic.
You're equating speech anarchy with free speech. They are not the same.
https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-serie...
I give thanks every day that I live in the USA where we have a written Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court with the courage to stand against government overreach.
Your country is banning books... I suggest learning a bit about other countries. The reality is freedom of speech is always a tradeoff in every country. There's always a line. The USA draws it inconsistently and erratically all the time.
I would never want to live in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I love your country. But a country that can just go on about the second amendment after the murder of school children isn't a place I would ever call home.
X demonstrates plainly the importance of technological measures against government overreach.
It's about moderation procedures. It's about the absence of moderation, and the hellscape that fills that void.
> Beheadings, mass shootings and other images linked to the violence targeting Israel widely shared on Elon Musk’s social media network.
This sort of gore is very illegal in EU. We do not have free speech in constitution, like US.
Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter. Granted, these may not allow the expression of the things you mentioned. (And I am not sure whether the Constitution in the U.S. either allows inciting violence.)
not really. it's freedom of expression, but with major caveats:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Eg. spreading state secrets would be illegal, but if such secrets would show things like war crimes, publication may be okay (whistleblowing) given the public's interest in knowing those crimes.
Imagery of gore / killings etc follows those same lines. Traditional media tend to be conservative there, and self-censor on the side of caution. Social media... not so much. Likes!
On a side note, I suspect many a politician would like to blur the line between graphic imagery & misinformation. That's intellectually dishonest imho:
Imagery can be extremely graphic, yet simply show what happened. And sometimes, it may be appropriate for the public to view such content. I rarely have any objection there as long as viewers are warned what they're about to see. Whether you'd want to distribute such material, is a matter of (bad) taste.
And otoh, one could have harmless-looking content that is 100% bs / misinformation. Possibly dangerous too. Removal of such material brings a host of issues concerning grey areas, who's to decide what's true, whether material is fake or not (and how to determine), what sources are 'trustworthy', etc etc. Flagging (but leaving available) seems a better approach there.
Leaving the remove option for things like copyright violations, calls to violence, etc.
2 Orthogonal subjects. Treat separately.
So... just like in the US ?
> In the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by precedents set in various legal cases. There are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,fighting words, fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct
Americans and their "muh freedom of speech" comments are the funniest thing ever, yours isn't absolute, like everywhere else, it's been proven times and times over
be careful with comments that tend to assume things.
i'm not american, don't live in america. the comment was about Europe and their "free speech", which in effect is much less "free" than in the US.
major differences between the US and EU when it comes to "free speech":
Absolute vs. Qualified Right:
US: The First Amendment offers strong protection against government censorship. While there are limitations (e.g., incitement to imminent lawless action, obscenity, certain kinds of hate speech), the U.S. generally offers wider latitude for free speech compared to many other countries.
EU: The right to freedom of expression in the EU is a qualified right. Article 10 of the ECHR itself provides that the exercise of this freedom "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." Reasons can include interests of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, preventing disorder or crime, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and reputations of others.
Hate Speech:
US: Hate speech, unless it directly incites violence or imminent harm, is generally protected by the First Amendment. However, this protection does not extend to private institutions or platforms which can set their own speech regulations.
EU: Hate speech is less tolerated in the EU, and many member states have laws that criminalize speech that incites violence, hatred, or discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, and more.
Libel and Defamation:
US: To win a defamation case, public figures must prove that the statement was false and that it was made with "actual malice" – meaning the person knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
EU: Defamation laws vary among EU member states, but the threshold for proving defamation is generally lower than in the U.S., especially for private individuals.
Limitations and Restrictions:
US: Limitations on speech often relate to time, place, and manner rather than content. There are also laws against obscenity, child pornography, false advertising, and speech that incites imminent harm.
EU: The EU and its member states have implemented various laws that can restrict speech for reasons including public order, morals, and protection of individual reputation.
Digital Platforms:
US: Private digital platforms (e.g., social media sites) are not bound by the First Amendment and can set their own content policies.
EU: The EU has been more proactive in regulating digital platforms, such as enforcing the right to be forgotten or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There is also more emphasis on combating fake news and misinformation.
Cultural Differences:
Cultural and historical contexts drive some of these differences. For instance, Europe's experience with fascism and hate-driven ideologies in the 20th century has influenced its stricter stance on hate speech.
It should be fairly easy to "prove" 40 babies have been beheaded
What about he "children in cages" ? Repurposed videos from Syria a few years ago, easily debunked, yet it got hundred thousands of views on twitter
But I do not actually disagree with the content. Content moderation is definitely an issue Musk tries to ignore.
Breton is set to be the next EU Commissioner, succeeding Ursula Van Der Leyden.
Big, "I shouldn't have to keep wasting my time on this" energy.
I don't think you would like living in a world where things like this could be settled swiftly and decisively. Having a government where voluntary compliance is the expected norm and applying real force takes time and resources is a feature not a bug.
In short: freedom of expression isn't an absolute right. The EU is correct, blatantly false posts should be suppressed. Twitter should have a moderation team, twitter MUST have someone answer take-down requests.
Freedom of expression isn't absolute, but should be close to it. The EU (or constituent national governments) should adopt the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. We have an existence proof that it works better than whatever unprincipled, haphazard policies they happen to pursue.
Do we have such an existence proof?
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/almo...
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/covid...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/tucker-carlsons-scorn-...
We shall see. Probably on the next quarter century, given how precarious the political situation is in the US right now.
This is not indicative of an open and inquisitive mentality.
> I see little or no misinformation in my feed. If you see a lot then you're probably using it wrong.
Another possibility is that you are experiencing confirmation bias.
However, I'll bite. What is the correct way to use twitter?
The correct way to use X is to follow high-quality accounts and like their posts. Mute or block low-quality accounts (including those reposted by accounts you do follow). Never read the replies as they are almost entirely junk.
EU fines have to be paid immediately and are transferred directly to the Commission's budget (making them a huge conflict of interest). Then, if you want, you can try to appeal and get your money back. That's the part that takes years.
This is the other way around to how law works in real democracies, where the government must actually win a case first before being able to levy punishment. But it's normal to be confused. The EU constitution dresses itself in the language and idioms of democracy without actually having the core spirit of it.
A CEO isn't really a particularly well-defined position under companies law anyway, in most cases. It's whatever the board says it is.
Maybe we can all finally agree anything on twitter is bullshit and stop linking to anything there as real news now, please?
TL:DR - Twitter Link, Didn't Read.
finger wagging and boycotting a free-to-use website seems like nothing more than virtue signalling.
If people saw the shear brutality and horror the only heads that would fly would be of the politicians and media that exploit conflicts for a profit.
But we can't have that. EU made sure its 'illegal' and that people need to be 'protected' from viewing the fallout of our policies.
Through out the history suppressing alternative points of view was never about protecting anything it was always about staying in power. This is no different.
idk if I remember them all but I've seen:
"hamas beheaded 40 babies!!!" > turns out it was 40 people, including babies, some decapitated
"hamas use trebuchets to send dead bodies" > no proof besides a very low res pic
"hamas dismember hostages by attaching them to two trucks and making them go opposite direction" > the picture was from a youtube thumbnail of a truck pulling duel, a body had been photoshoped on the rope between the two trucks
"hamas put children in cages" > turns out the video was from Syria years ago
"israel knew about it was going to be attacked but let it happen for political clout" > ok buddy but good luck proving that
The real stories are awful enough, I don't even get why people come up with these fake ones, there are real pics/vids of beheading, dead kids, &c. Even the real graphic content is getting pushed away by fake ones which sound more outlandish, people want their dose of atrocities
There are a lot of blatant falsehoods going around that are believable enough that people don't question them.
It’s way more likely people are posting videos of paragliders etc. to farm engagement due to financial incentives. Very telling that a news organization states that the sharing of information is an effort to shape public perception.
The problem isn't even the propaganda or the aftermath videos themselves, it's the fake ones and the misattributed ones
I don't think anyone here would argue we should be deleting evidence.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65755517
If it was only about sharing graphic content I'd be on your side, but for every "uncomfortable" image you have 300 bot accounts spreading straight up fabricated images and information
The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today
Twitter is the last link of information before going on CNN &co, it's garbage tier in every aspect you can think of and there are dozens of better places to see uncomfortable and unfiltered content. People think they get the truth there but they're just one layer down in the thousands layer onion of misinformation
That is my takeaway as well. Every feature of the site is abused at scale to flood the zone with shit. It's like trying to have a discussion inside of a wind tunnel.
I have no doubt a significant portion of that is true
> content made to trigger
However, this is what major news outlets do, usually at the request of a political party or faction
Of course that's why both should be avoided like the plague. Self proclaimed free thinkers who moved from fox/cnn to twitter.com/elonmusk and think the get the real truth™ are as dumb as it gets
how do you avoid it when the misinformation is intended to cause division, conflict, and war?
The first point is about having clear policies and consistent/predictable application there-of. Thierry talks about a change regarding "latest changes in public interest policies"... does anyone have a link or information on what Twitter changed?
The second point is about timely & objective takedowns of illegal content. Third is "proportionate and effective mitigation measures to tackle the risks to public security and civil discourse stemming from disinformation."
I guess I need to dive in and read it, but the asks here make me feel the Digital Services Act demands a perfect utopian system. They are murky enough so that there is zero way I could ever be in the clear, feel confident; someone will always be accusing me of inconsistently applying my policies, or someone will always be able to say that this post or that post means I am not stemming disinformation actively enough.
It's quite the turn, but I am interested & somewhat excited to see a world where these topics are up for discussion, where there's some light on how & where these happen. But I worry that nothing is good enough, that we could have councils of wisened elders (in a diverse array of languages, with express & direct access to local cultural experts & fact checkers) approving every post that - no matter how we try - we're going to do a pretty shabby job of a lot of this. The asks don't feel moderate; they feel infinite, and feel like the asks could only be satisfied in a fantastic Utopia where everything makes sense & everyone works together. But what I do like is that these important issues are up for discussion, that we have to have some discourse about them, that they don't get to remain invisible implicit decisions within medium & large social media organizations forever.
So many posts about this yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37839524
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836980
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37837053
It's 2023 and people still don't understand the premise of government censorship. Guess what: deleting misinformation is still censorship, it does not attack the issue itself; it only probably antagonizes the people who put said (false or not) information, and 'downgrades' the filter of the people who are actually interested in the truth. The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. We've been over this with covid already. You don't even have to be an optimist to notice that, most often than not, truth eventually comes out. And what's more interesting is that the more open and free a medium of information/discussion is, the >faster< it gets out. This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. Fabricating things not rooted in reality is harder and impossible to maintain.
EU regulators.
> The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging.
> This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings.
uh nope:
"The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities."
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re...
I'm aware of those frankly tragic episodes. But ask yourself this: is the problem the fact that simply misinfo was put on FB or the fact that there wasn't enough counter-balancing information available? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or downplay the situation, but the fact is that a lot of places suffer "from misinfo" because the only info available is misinfo. The human mind is inherently a curious mind. And as i've stated in my first comment, people tend to follow info from trains of thought that make sense(are logical)[yes, even if we're talking about religion/etc.): the contents of the information matters, how cohesive it is, how it attacks the false claims. I would argue that a big lie does not even need a "big truth" to be debunked, it only needs a well-thought question to instill the skepticism required for the lie to not be taken as plain truth.
Closing thoughts: in third-world regions: the ones you've mentioned, russia, "china"(on the freedom of information/liberty front), etc. the issue of misinformation is not really that misinformation exists; but actually that it is mainly the only information that exists, and there's not enough balancing "truth"/skepticism. You might think i'm silly or that i'm arguing for misinfo(that wouldn't suit me by the way), but I live in an ex-communist country: I've had some relative contact on how the centralized government used to push actual misinformation and how people took it as blind truth. After the said government(s) failed, people usually became more skeptical about all kinds of information(a good thing to do). Those people are the generation of my parents for example, a dying breed, and it should not come as a surprise that every subsequent generation that came after and took all news as "facts" became usually dumber, less rational, and more naive.
what you're describing is an ideal world where everyone thinks and acts rationally and is willing to change their views when new information is presented. that is far from reality. in short, propaganda works for a reason.
The EU is asking Twitter to define their own moderation policies and enforce them.
So which is it? You want government to do this or private companies?
>The EU is asking Twitter to define their own moderation policies and enforce them. The EU wants a lot of things that aren't feasible. This is one of them. Elon stated plenty of times that the platform should not censor or moderate more speech than necessary. This position turns out to be "harmful" in the eyes of EU, because like the bureaucrats they are, they need everything under control or determined to be under scrutiny a priori(by labeling speech by certain criterias). Imagine a new form of content that does not fall under any current regulation/moderation policies. By default it should not be problematic, because it's not "illegal". Thus my point: what EU deems misinfo/illegal is a slippery slope and will never, ever be satisfied. Unless of course we include a whole lot of nothing-speech.
>So which is it? You want government to do this or private companies?
Neither, or both. Depends if you think my answer is actual "moderation"(or censorship/removal of speech) or providing context in the form of fact-checking(community notes or whatever). If governments want to "fact-check" they should go ahead and do it. Otherwise if they simply just demand that the private company or they themselves(through some intermediaries) want speech removed, that's plain text censorship.[A little note: it's worse than that, you de facto have an actual fascist collusion between the state and private enterprises].
For myself, I see a grey area of information, which, while it may not be illegal, can be considered as harmful to people.
If the EU wanted to censor everything they disagree with, they would declare it illegal. That would be overreach in my opinion.
I however don't see it as unreasonable to ask that companies providing a platform take steps to protect their users from some kinds of information and are clear about what steps they will take to do so.
Maybe a slippery slope there, but equally having no moderation carries its own real harms.
-------------
Thank you to all the contributors who’ve been active over the last few days, helping to keep people on X informed. We wanted to share some of the impact of your work:
• In just three days, you wrote notes seen tens of millions of times.
• More than 500 unique notes relating to the attacks and unfolding events are being shown on X.
• Because of the new "notes on media" feature, these notes display on an additional 3000+ posts. This number grows automatically if the relevant images and video are re-used in new posts.
• Notes related to the attacks cover a wide range of topics from out-of-context war footage, to unrelated or outdated protest/celebration videos, to fake videos made with game simulators, to claims of US funding related to conflict, to claims about specific events having taken place in the conflict, and more.
https://twitter.com/CommunityNotes/status/171182415613462939...
T. Breton is talking about EUROPE's REGULATION, not freedom of speech! And it's his job...
So:
* if you live in Europe (so are submitted to Europe's Laws):
* if you dont live in Europe then... all this doesn't matter to you! You won't be impacted so... why commenting and trying to explain what is wrong about European Laws ?Once the government gets to decide what's true and what's not, your country is no longer free. If the government wants to fight misinformation, it should disclose more information. If the government has an ability to silence anyone, this ability will be used to silence information harmful to the government.