this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
111 points (92.4% liked)

Privacy

31998 readers
967 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] idefix@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 hours ago

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

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

[–] Viri4thus@feddit.org 32 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

"I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom."

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

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

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

[–] Fusty@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 48 minutes ago (1 children)

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

[–] Fusty@lemmy.ml 1 points 29 minutes ago (1 children)

Ahh ok, I see that you're making a specious argument.

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 22 minutes ago (1 children)

Democracy: good. Destroying democracy: bad. Still too specious for you?

[–] Fusty@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 minute ago

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

[–] INeedMana@lemmy.world 17 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

I don't know

Wouldn't that enable an angle of "martyr for freedom of speech"?

And while I agree that it stopped being what it was and we can't rely on it anymore, wouldn't that separate EU from the rest of the world given current market share?

In my opinion: abandon - yes. Ban - no

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

Abandon would be the best approach. A ban would just make people want to use it more.

When twitter (now formally know as "X") was first a thing, the only reason I joined was because private business, city services, and news agencies became a little easier to follow in one unified location. It also made it easier to reach them with quick tweets.

Maybe the solution is to put a restriction on business, news agencies, and government services from using it?

[–] sleen@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 hours ago

Initially thought the post was an attempt on a joke. But yes, what would banning prove?

X might be a threat to privacy and freedom but doesn't Facebook, Microsoft and others do the same. It looks like a poorly developed plan.

[–] donuts@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Wouldn't that enable an angle of "martyr for freedom of speech"?

Could you elaborate on this angle? I'm not very well versed in the rights of companies operating in the EU, but I'm unsure "freedom of speech" is one of them.

Edit: I did find information about how social media needs to help us protect freedom of speech for all of their users. Currently, X is doing the opposite it seems

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago

I also think he should be investigated for buying votes in the recent election.

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] Turd_Ferg@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 minutes ago

Get out of here with that logical thought. Elon bad.

[–] akkajdh999@programming.dev 9 points 5 hours ago

self-censorship 😂 wonderful

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 47 minutes ago

VPNs exist. All blocking of websites is just a slight inconvenience at the end of the day.

[–] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

As much as I hate X, I might have to think about this one for a while. Sure, this platform is a vessel for fascist propaganda and a threat to democracy, but on the other hand, creating a legitimate precedent for banning a social network on political grounds might be a slippery slope. The EU has already made dubious reforms regarding internet freedom, like their antiterrorist bill which require website hosts to remove content whithin an hour if it is signaled to them by the police. I'm not sure if giving them more power and legitimacy in policing online content is a good idea...

[–] chloroken@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Shutting down a nontheoretical fascist breeding ground VS. a theoretical slide to 1984.

Isn't this the lesser evilism I was fed for the last year? Isn't this the trolley problem? This should be easy for the American left to get behind.

Instead its "okay a little fascism is okay, as a treat" and its odd to me.

[–] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe it'd be an easy choice for the American left, but I'm from the French left. Along with groups such as La Quadrature du Net have been protesting reforms like the aforementioned european directive for adressing antiterrorist contents, of France's temporary ban on Telegram during the riots or the ban of Tiktok in Kanaky during the uprising, and now we're supposed to turn around and say "actually censorship is cool"? Are we to empower those we're fighting in hope that they exclusively use this power against our common enemies? I've left Twitter the very day its purchase by the muskrat was officialized and I've been telling everyone I know to do as much. Sure, a european ruling would give me something I want, but I don't trust in what comes next. There's no way the European Union bans X and don't end up blocking left wing fedi instances like ml or hexbear, as soon as their existence is brought to their attention.

[–] chloroken@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry, let me be clear. I was pointing out how if one's strategy is to let fascist breeding grounds sit unmolested, one will need a lot more compensation than hypothetical slippery slopes. As stated, the trade off is hardly worth it.

It's the same style of rationale for why many leftists didn't vote Harris.

[–] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I see, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[–] chloroken@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

I love your face. Never change, commenter.

[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

If you don't censor hate speech and allow malicious propaganda to be the default, is there really any value in letting it be accessible?

The problem really is that the lenders of X's debt probably have a significant influence and have a vested interest in recouping their money.

[–] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

I don't believe there is any value in X. In fact I'd say it has negative value. However, granting the UE power and legitimacy to censor any website for political reason also has a negative value, and I'm not certain which is lower.

[–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] moreeni@lemm.ee 3 points 5 hours ago

"It's not censorship, it's oounter-disinformation measures!! 1!"

[–] felsiq@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

i wonder if elon would prod trump to make good on their threat to defund nato if the eu cancels twitter. how would it impact ukraine?

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

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

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