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. 🤣🤣🤣
The “brilliance” of Elon’s plan: he is impervious to EU fines because he doesn’t make any money.
If that is gross revenue, I have bad news for the EU. “X” is, IIRC, operating in the red since Musk bought it.
It’s revenue, not profit. “X, formerly Twitter” still gets paid by advertisers, even if the amount is much lower than it used to be.
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 is estimated 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.
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).
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
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.
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
My favourite is “absolute free speech!!” combined with “if you say something someone doesn’t like, they are entitled to punch you”
Anyone who says that is forgetting that punching falls under assault.
Hate speech is far beyond merely “something I don’t like”. It is advocating for the oppression and even eradication of people based on their very identity.
Hate speech should not be tolerated if we want to live in a society that tolerates the existence of others. (So called “paradox of tolerance” which is really not a paradox when you frame it as I have). We can tolerate the existence of bigoted assholes but prohibit them spreading their bigotry. Otherwise we live in a society that supports intolerance.
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?
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.
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.
It isn’t and it’s a good idea.
But somehow the US doesn’t seem to be as good at having one as they might want to think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
It’s not terrible in that index, but it’s below most European countries.
Edit: or maybe you prefer an index by a US instituation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report) the ranking looks pretty similar, though.
Let me just say this… A real man (or woman) admits when they’re wrong.
You did so. My upvote is going to do nothing for the ratio, but I saw you.
Additional evidence changed your opinion, and that you didn’t replace your post - you added additional information that changed your mind
That’s the standards I hold myself to, and for that you have my respect
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.
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.
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.
Getting rid of misinformation is great.
Getting rid of accurately reported, gruesome images because of a government mandate flies in the face of the core principles of free speech. And it would cause real damage to the world.
Remember that it was only when the world actually saw images of the Nazi concentration camps that the world actually believed it. They’d heard about it for years, but it was largely ignored.
I respect that but the images presented to the public were selected to denounce and illustrate horrendous acts commited.
Here, I’d risk there is a very high risk/probability whatever may be leaked/posted is for pure shock value, with no intention to inform or contextualize.
Intent doesn’t matter. People should be allowed to document and post crimes committed against humanity
Intent does matter. It is so inportant it is even relevant in courts of law.
You want the images of the barbarism raging in Israel as we speak to be known to the world and that is a good thing. People need to see the acts being commited there.
Yet twitter is not, in any way, the platform for it, as those same images are very easily twisted out of context and thrown out in a fashion that will only serve to further entrench extreme positions and used for sheer shock value.
These are human lives being laid to waste, not a social media circus for browny points.
Yeah, I see denouncing and illustrating terrorist attacks as a good thing.
Yes, which requires an unbiase position, supplying all possible information.
Nowadays, and even more when considering twitter, that is hardly the case.
Getting rid of misinformation is great.
That is the goal. The OP article and especially the headline here is misleading.
This is what is in the original letter regarding violent images: „repurposed old images of unrelated armed conflicts or military footage that actually originated from video games“.
The issue is not violent images per se. The issue is misinformation through violent images that are unrelated to the current events.
and other gruesome images or propaganda that promote terrorist organizations.
Seems to me like this is a sly way to remove any videos where Hamas is successful.
Which is weird, because seeing those videos usually gives more support for Israel.
This whole law is fucked. Leave freedom of speech alone.
Freedom of speech is mostly an American concept. In most European states we „only“ have freedom of expression and opinion (a human right). Deliberately spreading propaganda, agitation and fake news is not covered by freedom of expression and opinion. On the contrary, it can be a criminal offense.
This is not the first time Musk thinks US laws apply to the whole world or that he is above the law of the countries his businesses operate in. A part of me hopes that he gets fined and then ignores the fine. He might just be stupid enough.
See? I called him stupid. That is an expression of my opinion. Using images of violence from 2010 and claiming that they are from 2023 is not an opinion.
Or else what? Small fine? You’ll never see him.
Did you even read the text post? 6% of revenue, because some places have reasonable laws that charge percentages of revenue.
I read it. I was asking a rhetorical question. 6% of X revenue is not 6% of elon revenue, fwiw. Impact is still limited.
Of course impact is going to be limited. The alternative being unlimited? I don’t think Musk deserves most of his wealth, but for the penelty of something like this to be taking literally all of it away would be insane. It’s always going to be limited. That’s basically what laws do. They should be proportional.
