If the ban brings a new alternative in place, then yes. I'm not from the EU or the USA, but I'm used to Mastodon and Lemmy. I don't mind non-american alternatives. The EU should have its own competitive social media for the rest of the world.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
87 points (95.8% liked)
BuyFromEU
2265 readers
587 users here now
Welcome to BuyFromEU - A community dedicated to supporting European-made goods and services!
We also invite you to subscribe to:
Logo generated with mistral le chat Banner by Christian Lue on unsplash.com
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
We should ban it for politicians. Why on earth would you use a for-profit foreign platform for official communication?
I wrote to my MP asking them to stop using it and to help to get other MPs off the platform. Everyone should write to their representativea in government asking them to do the same.
This was the moment where banning twitter turned from a good idea into a non negotiable measure we need to take asap.
I'd prefer tariffs on Twitter and Tesla in all EU nations until the Trump tariffs are removed --> income should be used to fund European social media and European car production
Can I answer: "Yes" loudly enough?
Depends what "ban" means. If it refers to them not being able to be commercially active in the EU because they violate EU regulations, sure. So no selling ads, no targeting ads, no selling blue check-marks.
If it refers to preventing people from the EU to access their website through meddling with DNS or similar means, then i am against it. We should be able to access it, but they shouldnt be able to make money off it in the EU.
I do agree.
Some people might need access to those sites for various reasons (journalists making research, keeping in contact with friends overseas, etc.). But we ought to inform the european population about the dangers of using those services, and preferably move politics and country-specific communication (your local police station social media account) onto european solutions.
Cutting off or limiting the profits which american megacorps can make off the european population does also sound like a good idea.
X does not and will not comply with EU rules, and thus needs to be banned until they change (i.e. indefinitely).
I am also fine with escalating fines until the problems are addressed. Say, start with 1000$ and double that every week until they comply, either they do or there'll be a lot of money.
Not a twitter/x or bluesky user, never really my type of preferred social media. So I wouldn't miss it.
However we must realize the most crucial factor about X in Europe, the fact that it's a clearly compromised and biased network, highly subject to corruption, division and disinformation.
Would the average person participate and support X if it was owned by a russian oligarch? And that russian propaganda was quite obvious within the social platform?
Some would, sure, but the majority would mistrust it and be far more critical about potentially false information.
So yeah, it should be categorically banned from EU nations. Not because I hate it, but because of the dangers of division it represents to our society. Specially when for those who like X-style platforms there's already "non-regime" alternatives.
it kinda is owned by a russian oligarch
I would rather the users all realize it's a nazi bar and stop using it, but that's never going to happen. Too many people are oblivious, don't care, or are pro-nazi. Shutting down the nazi bar with the power of the state is acceptable to me.
Yes. Freedom of speech? There is no true freedom of speech there so limiting X is not a violation of it
Banning shitter - sounds okay to me
Fuck Twitter but not sure a ban would be a good thing
Banning fascists instead of accomodating them is absolutely the right thing to do. It's accommodating them that got us into this mess.
A tiktok ban style law would go against freedom of speech. Better to let the EC and the courts ban Twitter based on the existing, sensible DSA law.
Banning a platform doesn't take the right to speak freely
will they do it though?
To be honest, I wouldn't mind. I also wouldn't mind banning any and all of social media.
The experiment was fun while it lasted but as is often the case some people poison the well. And that happened to every social media. In my eyes every social media is very much a propaganda tool and destabilizes the democracies around the world. The corporations behind these are not moderating enough because they don't want to or it is to costly for them or just - what I can understand - too much to do feasibly.
So every social media should be banned. I understand that this is not what everyone thinks or wants to hear, but in my eyes the car already hit the wall and we have to live with the consequences.
(I do fully understand that this means reddit, feddit, youtube and others. I would really miss feddit and youtube but well... I like to live in a progressive society and not in a dystopian, propaganda riddled shadow of its former self.)
It sounds like your advocating banning open communication
I understand your concerns and effectivly if put it that way I'm advocating just that. I concur that this will put me in a bad spot.
Open communication is a very powerful tool especially in politics and academia. The thing is propaganda is also a powerful tool in politics. Propaganda and populism. With social media both of them became ubiquitous much to the detriment of the western democracies. The corona pandemic and all things about vaccination are a prime example of this trend.
While I still would very much like to have the ability to chat with someone from Australia or see pictures of people in Bali or share recipies with people of Norway, I see the downsides and am very worried of the trend that is emerging. The political discourse is rife with populism and the divided masses go into the fox holes for every matter be it as small as an atom and without any merit to argue about.
I have the feeling that compassion, understanding, and sympathy is going downhill and social media is giving a minority a voice to sound like a majority. I have the feeling that social media is exasperating all the negative emotions of the people. And to be honest that scares me.
So unless social media is heavily moderated - to battle e.g. hate speech and propaganda - I think a shutdown of every social media is needed.
But I have a question for you: Do you think of phpbb forums and blogs as open communication? If that's the case, I'd say that I'm ambivalent of this issue since I wouldn't mind blogs and forums since they are (typically) moderated.
P.S.: Reading all this again I see that it could be positive to give a minority a voice - like people with rare diseases so they could get better help, like repressed people and so on and so forth. But I still believe that sadly the cons outweigh the pros.
There are still some ways to use banned apps and programmes. Besides it takes away opportunity of making your own decisions and creates the atmosphere of censorship.
In my opinion, the advantages of these platforms will far outweigh the disadvantages - provided that the abuse of power can be curbed (opaque algorithms that present fringe positions to a large audience, censorship by the owner, etc.). Regulatory measures are needed for all actors: rules for algorithm transparency, audits. If disclosure or audit fails, platforms can continue to be accessible but must shut down algorithms.
These platforms are literally the reason why the US has a fascist as president.
I'm not a believer in any form of censorship. That's not how you fight against shit ideas or products.
Also, what would be next? Ban people not voting for the right candidate and then, those wearing socks the wrong color? According to who? That's a dangerously slippery slope...
I’m sorry if this is not a good community for this question. If not please point me to one.
'Buy from EU' as I see it is not 'force people to buy from EU' it's more about 'encourage people by showing them EU alternatives as honestly as possible' (they're not perfect, nor are they always as feature-rich as the US alternatives) ;)
The slippery slope argument is such bullshit. The reason the Nazis got to power is because of the slippery slope argument. The reason Mussolini got into power is because of the slippery slope argument. Fascism should not be acceptable. End of story.
Learn history.
Hey, the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s/1930s has complex origins and historians have written many books about it. There are many reasons for Hitlers and Mussolinis rise to power, so let's not go around and give undercomplex explanations like "the slippery slope argument"
Learn history.
Repeating crap you've heard here or there has little to do with learning history, or learning anything for that matter but I've little hope this will change any time soon.
Thanks nonetheless for that wise suggestion, we should all agree upon studying history (a lot more interesting than simply learning it, mind you).
The slippery slope argument is such bullshit. The reason the Nazis got to power is because of the slippery slope argument. The reason Mussolini got into power is because of the slippery slope argument. Fascism should not be acceptable. End of story.
Also, thx for such an articulated comment that excellently demonstrates as much practice as desire to discuss our diverging view points. Unless, could it be I only have a (apparently terribly wrong) personal opinion on a question upon which you speak the truth? In which case, what was that you were saying? Oh, yeah: 'end of story'.
Edit: small corrections
Learn history. Look up the lectures by Sarah Paine.
hear hear