The tech mogul’s platform is the first to get hit with charges under new EU social media law.
The European Union is calling Elon Musk to order over how he turned social media site X into a haven for disinformation and illegal content.
The EU Commission on Friday formally charged X for failing to respect EU social media law. The platform could face a sweeping multi-million euro fine in a pioneering case under the bloc’s new Digital Services Act (DSA), a law to clamp down on toxic and illegal online content and algorithms.
Musk’s X has been in Brussels’ crosshairs ever since the billionaire took over the company, formerly known as Twitter, in 2022. X has been accused of letting disinformation and illegal hate speech run wild, roll out misleading authentication features and blocking external researchers from tools to scrutinize how malicious content on the platforms spreads.
The European Commission oversees X and two dozens of the world’s largest online platforms including Facebook, YouTube and others. The EU executive’s probe into Musk’s firm opened in December 2023 and was the first formal investigation. Friday’s charges are the first-ever under the DSA.
Infringements of the DSA could lead to fines of up to 6 percent of a X’s global revenue.
Also, he just says he’s autistic. As far as is known, he’s never actually gotten an evaluation.
So he’s not just using autism as an excuse, he might not even have autism. And he wouldn’t, sadly, be the first to pretend he did to excuse his behavior.
The Autistic Community doesn’t deserve to mentioned in the same sentence as his.
Is 6% of global revenue enough? Or is that just a foot note in the books on the cost of doing business?
That could realistically be around 1/3 yearly profit in a reasonable company (18% operating margin is common). No idea whether Twitter is currently profitable (it wasn’t when he bought it).
Question still stands, is it enough?
yeah it seems big enough that it might be cheaper to hire moderators
Hire? There’s enough nazis dying to get that job for free.
I mean that seems reasonably punishing yeah, not nearly the hours worth of profit usually charged to companies breaking the law. I believe the EU can even enforce its own content moderation on the site and charge the costs of that to Musk so its pointless for a company to not follow the laws at that point …
Musk will buy a company and tank it for the memes. I don’t think a warning shot like this will sway his decisions on the direction of said company. The people making the decisions aren’t culpable, the company is. The people making the decisions will just leave to a different company and we can start the whole process over again.
I hope it’s enough and I sound like a bitter old man.
Then he can tank it for the memes. Do that to enough companies and the “weird genius techbro” mask starts slipping and the venture capitalists no longer want to bankroll you and you start being seen as a liability.
God that would be great to see, what a temper tantrum that would be.
Historically, no, because companies still misbehave, the fines aren’t high enough for them to not try and see whether they get away with stuff.
OTOH, historically, yes, because once fines come flying companies shape up.
That is, they’re willing to gamble on that initial fine, but absolutely won’t tank the recurring fines for continued infringement.
An example could be AliExpress, with a 130B in revenue and 11B in profit (2023), it would reduce their profit to 3.2B with the 6% fine. That’s a whopping 70% less profits, and cutting expenses isn’t gonna fix it either.
It’s 6% of revenue, not profit. So it cuts even more into profits as it doesn’t allow a company in breach of regulations to reduce the impact of the fine by adding expenses that will temporarily lower their profit.
Even more spicy, they can also impose periodic penalties up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover for each day of delay in complying. That shit can bankrupt you.
Thank you for showing me the teeth behind this ruling. If non-compliance carries harsher consequences, it may be enough
Or Musk could pull Twitter out of the EU.
That would be so wonderful. The EU economy would probably take off just from the saved time/brainpower, lol.
6% of profit would mean that EU owes twitter money.
Maybe provide an alternative? Ban EU politicians from using Twitter for their official accounts
oh no, what are they gonna do?? what are WE gonna do?? ;```````````(
That would work against data harvesting (which Twitter obviously also does), but not against the spreading of disinformation.
They need to first move out their official’s accounts out of twitter If they really want to lead by example, there is Threads and mastodon and what not!
Seeing how Facebook and Instagram have been shutting down posts about Israeli atrocities in Gaza. and deleting Palestinian Journalists accounts, Such moves to try and police what is fake news and what isn’t by governments according to their own interests and biases is an attack on free speech and freedom of the press.
They already post on Mastodon https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission
Am guessing it’s the case of trying to be on all social media platforms where people are.
Thierry breton himself does’t post on mastodon, If my memory is right he had an account on mastodon but doesn’t post there! celebrities need and audience that’s why they are hooked to Twitter and are trying to shape it to their liking.
Disinformation is words
It spreads on twitter, it spreads on facebook, on tiktok, on youtube, on discord, text messages, books, speeches, talking to coworkers. This is like the war on drugs except even easier to circumvent any bans. Youre not gonna beat disinformation by trying to block it.
You’re also not going to beat it by not trying to deal with it. The transition from twitter being an unreliable source to becoming an unbridled dumpster fire of disinformation and hate campaigns has a direct correlation with Musk taking specific steps to cater to those audiences while ripping out any facilities to filter it.
It’s not all or nothing, like basically everything else in life, it requires balance. Just like you don’t have to “beat” drugs to help drug users find a better path, you don’t have to “beat” disinformation in order to help stop it from spreading. You can take steps when/where they make sense to limit the damage and give people a chance to pull their head out of the cesspool to get enough air that society can function in a manner in tune with reality to some degree.
Just like you don’t have to “beat” drugs to help drug users find a better path, you don’t have to “beat” disinformation in order to help stop it from spreading
The war on drugs notably did not involve helping users find a better path, it only tried to block the path of drug use, with pretty disastrous results as drug users became pariahs pushed to more dangerous avenues of drug sources to get around the blocks.
The only thing we are talking about here is a block from one path of disinformation. Theyll get pushed to the fringes of more dangerous sources of misinformation.
I’m not talking about the war on drugs, I’m talking about the fact that rehab facilities, education, counseling/medical aid are helpful to curtailing an out of control drug epidemic and reducing the negative impact on society.
Just because the “war on drugs” failed doesn’t drug-related issues can’t be addressed to some degree. You focus on completely blocking misinformation so it doesn’t exist, I’m trying to point out other considerations: ranking, exposure, flagging/reviewing posts, community notes to provide additional context. These are all things that exist, that are used heavily, that impact our information feeds 24/7, and that will continue to be used to significant effect on the general population, whether for good or for bad. More likely the latter if everyone adopts perspectives like yours.
I am talking about the war on drugs, as that is what this is akin to, purely trying to block disinformation.
All of the “other considerations” youve added, except for community context, are just tools to block. Like the war on drugs using drug tests, drug sniffing dogs, report hotlines, methods to find drugs and punish for it.
Community context is a good example of things that do work, that is akin to educating people about drugs rather than trying to block them. But twitter has that tool, twitter is being punished for not blocking misinformation.
The specific charges noted in the article have similar nuances to the examples i gave. They are fixable and addressable and impactful. They do not require a full block on misinformation, which is obviously not something that’s possible to enforce effectively and not what’s being expected of X.
I just wrote out a long response, ending with the idea that if misinformation gets removed from twitter, its only because its moved somewhere less visible to the public. And then realized i was arguing disinformation would be less visible to the public.
Kick Musk’s ass EU
Bravo, blazera. It’s always nice to see some concern for the truth on the internet. I mean this very unsarcastically.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen somebody publicly changing their mind on the internet until I came here. Perhaps there is something special about lemmy.
The internet needs more of this. Maybe lemmy can amplify public mind changings like this somehow…
Milo Yiannoppolous agrees with you, which is why he’s such a huge celebrity today.
The article states that the EU is objecting to a couple of particular things:
The EU said X’s blue checks policy was deceiving and had been abused by malicious actors. The checks were initially created as as way to verify users like government officials, public figures and journalists, in efforts to limit misinformation, but Musk changed that policy, allowing users to buy blue check accounts. The new policy has been abused by fraudsters to impersonate U.S. politician Hillary Clinton and author J.K. Rowling, among many other celebrities.
The platform also didn’t respect an obligation to provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository and limited access to its public data to researchers, the Commission said.
This is not some amorphous campaign against disinformation, it’s a challenge to two specific policies of X.
When the vast majority spreads on several platforms, you can very much beat it by blocking it. We’re not doing it not because we can’t but because letting it spread is profitable. Prior to the invention of modern social media the problem of misinformation was much smaller. Yes of course it will never disappear but we don’t need it to disappear.
I wish you could’ve lived in the wild days of eating lead and radiation well before the internet was even an idea.
That kinda sounds like a threat.
You think im threatening to send you back in time???
Let’s just say you could… How much to go back 46 years?
They’ve done research about deplatforming, and it’s actually really effective in reducing content - most of the followers aren’t motivated enough to jump to a different website to follow their conspiracy content.
Got reference on hand? I’d like to store it for future use. ☺️
Appreciate it!
Thank you 🙏
No, but he is finding out why twitter had all of its policies on combatting misinformation before he took over and gutted the staff… to prevent getting sued. You can say anything you want in America and the government can’t tell you that you aren’t allowed to say it, but you are still accountable for the damages caused by what you say… just ask Alex Jones.
But operating in other countries doesn’t afford the same protections from government scrutiny.
Disinformation campaigns are part of the reason social media is causing as much social strife in the world. It is not outside a logical line of thought that governments are going to attempt to minimize the damages from platforms like Twitter when they can. You may not beat misinformation, but you can minimize the financial incentive to promote it if you fine the fuck out of it when you find it.
Youre mixing up the accusation that twitter isnt stopping misinformation with an accusation that twitter itself is speaking misinformation. We’re talking about them being held responsible for what other people say.
If you make a deal with someone to come on your front porch every day yelling hate speech into your loudspeaker I think you’ll find it’s pretty easy to be held accountable for what other people say.
Second, if you’ll remember, Twitter makes money from showing adds on this speech. It’s not like they’re doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Profiting from hate speech isn’t going to be looked at kindly.
A deal with someone?
What’s confusing you?
That twitters made a deal with people to post misinformation
That’s not what I said. In neither situation does the deal enforce that the person HAS to use the loudspeaker for hate speech. I wish I could blame your reading comprehension but it’s painfully obvious you’re arguing in bad faith since this is the pedantic detail you’re stuck on instead of the rest of my argument.
Every Twitter user makes a deal with Twitter to get an account. This deal includes what’s acceptable behaviour. If Twitter’s policy allows hate speech then it’s Twitter’s fault their platform is spreading hate speech. If Twitter’s policy prohibits hate speech then it’s still their fault because they’re not enforcing their policy. This is something Twitter had no problem with before their degenerate new owner fired the enforcement team.
Now let’s see what pedantic detail you get stuck on this time instead of facing the fact Twitter is liable for enabling hate speech to spread faster than ever before!
Not saying this out of any support for Elon or Twitter, just because I respect free speech.
It would be nice if the US pushed back on the EU on this type of thing. Going after platforms for the speech of their users, especially with a government mandated monetary incentive behind it, is an open door for censorship and unfairness. A US company, born under the auspices of a nation where free speech is literally rule number one, should be defended by the US government when other nations create rules attempting to stifle that free speech (especially when those rules also come with huge fines which siphon money, however much, from the US economy).
Governments should be developing ways to stop bots and botnets not stifling human public expression, no matter how disagreeable to the political sensibilities of those governments that expression may be.
US companies can
fuck offwithdraw from the EU.Also the US is not pro free speech. The first amendment only prevents the government from censoring not private entities such as twitter and other social media. They can in fact and do censor their users so them crying wolf about being censored themselves is ironic. After all they are not even human unlike (well some of) their users.
Free speech protects journalists from being imprisoned for reporting on events in the world, with the angle to the story they see fit.
Free speech is not about preventing any old fart spewing actual falsifiable lies/misinformation from being silenced on a privately owned platform.
Free speech also isn’t about choosing to disregard anti-misinformation laws in other parts of the world, in the name of said old farts’ rights to say anything, but still insisting on serving customers in those same parts of the world.
That’s what EU is fighting against. Misinformation spread on a platform serving EU customers is finable. If Twitter/X wants to stick to free speech principles without being fined, they have two options.
- combat misinformation/lies (this isn’t anti free speech)
- geoblock the EU. Don’t do business here
Going after platforms for the speech of their users,
The EU is going after X for selling blue check marks while marketing them as a sign of trustworthiness. They claim this is misleading. They’re not going after X for anything the users said.
In many European countries, there’s no American style free speech, there are laws that forbid some contents, such as racism, sexism and lgbtq-hate. People get fined and associations are dissolved because of it frequently.
I understand the argument for not letting a government control speech, because it seems against democratic. But when you see what’s happening to the USA where about half the voters are voting for someone who wants to undermine its democracy, attack women, the poor and the minorities, maybe you would think that the impact of free hate speech on democracy can be destructive.The issues with the US bulling their way in here is that while they set themselves up as the arbiters of free speech… these are not your counties. These are democratic institutions who have made independently made these decisions based on their concepts of what constitutes safeguarding the welfare of their citizens. They have determined that repeat targetted provably untrue propaganda based out of intellectual dishonesty that is designed to leave people angry at minorities creates conditions where people logically come to the conclusion that the killing, oppressing and subjugation of people to the point they see death as preferable to life is not okay.
The version of “free speech” that constantly gets toted as a universal good is essentially an experiment. When you see how something is functionally shaping your society and you see that while aspects of it are very healthy and cause additional stability and protection to people but a misuse is causing some people to be treated as subhuman then it’s time to amend the rules. A government should be held accountable for the welfare of all it’s citizens and those non-citizens whom it has temporary sovereignty over. Each country has the right to determine how best to initiate that directive. You are very welcome to defend your version of free speech as defined by American sensibilities on American ground, but American meddling in the ethics of countries whose value systems deal in more nuance would be very unwelcome. Quite frankly since the application of “free speech” under American terms has caused so much political stratification in their own homeland to the point where civil war or a breakdown of other democratic norms are snowballing they need to see to their own house before they can critique other nations.
Oh you mean the same government that was revealed to have worked with Twitter to ban political opposition under the same reasoning of misinformation and hate speech?
I’m no fan of Musk but given how other platforms like Meta, Reddit and even TikTok are kowtowing to Zionist pressure to clamp down on Palestinian support I’m extremely suspicious of this move. It seems like a convenient excuse for greater censorship.
You see, Twitter does that AND deliberately elevates far right conspiracies and other extremist content AND deliberately censors or at least delays opposing views.
I’m not saying that the EU shouldn’t also go after the other platforms you mention (they ABSOLUTELY should and probably will), but Twitter is tied with Facebook if not alone in first place when it comes to spreading disinformation.
Hey, did Nick Fuentes tell you to write that?
If you cared to read the article, you will find that they also are investigating AliExpress, Facebook, Instagram and Tiktok.
Read the article? Are you new here?
Fucking finally!
I don’t go on that shithole site, but it seems like he not just letting disinformation go wild, but banning info
And promoting disinfo. The blue checkmarks are basically just a way to pay for prioritized disinformation-spreading.
Only 6%? That needs a zero slapped onto the end of it.
Still, it’s revenue (not just profit)
The European Commission oversees X and two dozens of the world’s largest online platforms
Sometimes it’s fun to be a grammar Nazi.
Knowing that omitting the word “other” implies that the hangout of REAL Nazis is at most the 25th largest online platform is one of those times 😁
…and they are only 1 year too late…
I mean, yea. Of course it has become a haven for disinformation. That’s why he bought it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The European Union is calling Elon Musk to order over how he turned social media site X into a haven for disinformation and illegal content.
The platform could face a sweeping multi-million euro fine in a pioneering case under the bloc’s new Digital Services Act (DSA), a law to clamp down on toxic and illegal online content and algorithms.
X has been accused of letting disinformation and illegal hate speech run wild, roll out misleading authentication features and blocking external researchers from tools to scrutinize how malicious content on the platforms spreads.
In preliminary findings, the Commission said X’s platform so-called blue checks had misled users into thinking some content was trustworthy when it wasn’t necessarily.
The platform also didn’t respect an obligation to provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository and limited access to its public data to researchers, the Commission said.
The EU so far launched investigations under the DSA into companies including AliExpress, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram and TikTok over alleged problems like insufficient consumer protection and addictive algorithms.
The original article contains 389 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What if Musk pulls Twitter out of the EU? What fraction of their revenue is that, I wonder?
Normally this would be too crazy to even consider, but… this is Musk we’re talking about. I’m sure he hates the EU government’s guts already. And that totally sounds like an impulse decision he would make.
I think his main motivation for continuing to run the company is to spread his agenda. If it only costs him a small percent of revenue to keep pushing Nazi taking points, thenbi think he’ll just pay the fines.
hehe, double the fines every day of noncompliance. I heard you like fines, so I added some fines on your fines and some fines on top of those to go with your fines. Don’t fuck with EU regulators.
Even without doubling, fines on a regular basis can hurt. Norway imposed $100k fine on FB on a daily basis, and FB is scrambling to do something about it, especially before other countries in the EU follow suit
You raise an interesting point, but Norway isn’t in the EU, is it?
For many intents and purposes, Norway uses the same laws and regulations the EU does. In this particular case, it’s just about setting an example
100k isn’t that much. However, if the EU decides to go for the total 6% of global revenue it will cost Musk a shitload of money.
@cows_are_underrated @world Does X have a high turnover of anything (except staff)?
100k is a lot when you consider how small Norway’s population is. If you extend that same ratio per capita to the rest of the EU, FB would go broke.
OK, you got a point there.
We can only hope he does. More people move over to mastodon with large companies running their own instances in the ecosystem.
This would allow for a federated broadcast system similar to how Twitter is now used, but if mastodon gets critical mass and governments start using it like they do Vichy Twitter it would be great news.
If that leads to some extra government grants for the further development of mastodon and the fediverse… Possibly even under the guise of standing up to big american tech… we all win.
But if he does, he signed the Death warrant of his own platform. A lot of governments and mega corps are there because of users. Governments will all need to replace it immediately if they find out their main broadcasting platform could be turned off tomorrow.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a government institution in the EU above the municipal level which doesn’t have a mastodon server or account on some government server.
deleted by creator
I also read the term and though… this fits.
Twitter served a purpose as it allowed yelling into a crowd and people interested could tune into your yelling. Especially for official announcements it was great. I see that there is a need for a broadcast method for companies and even more for governments. Mastodon seems to fit better. It allows them to run their own server and keep it closed so no need to moderate users but still able to have reach.
As someone who works in the field, DSA-like regulation is coming to many countries over the next couple years. We also have regulations on political ads that are similar to DSA already in many countries already. Mega platforms like X have little choice but to get compliant
Win win?
Hmm…EU citizens would be winning, but who else?
Musk could keep doing whatever it is he’s doing right now.
He could not though - losing the EU would be a win for him how?
Musk could keep doing whatever it is he’s doing right now.
A lot of companies that loudly “pulled out of Russia” are still working in Russia.
Twitter’s business is advertising. If they shun the EU, EU companies just aren’t allowed to buy ads without getting in hot water themselves.
He always complies with everything e.g. Turkey and many authoritarian governments want without a peep. The EU (and an even more shocking example: Brazil) are the only chumps who let him troll with impunity. Time to change that.
