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.
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).
Absolute minus nipples.
Those offensive nubs just can not stop swearing.
A free press is hardly a US-centric idea.
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.
Free speech and free press are vital to intellectual progress.
Information needs to be exchanged to grow.
They were referring to absolute free speech. Something that many people in the US believe to be a real thing.
What intellectual growth can one expect from videos of Hamas slaughtering civilians in slow motion, overlaid with glorifying music?
The rest of the world knows what is happening and can respond accordingly.
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
No, you don’t understand, it’s easy:
Easy, huh? /s
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.
The only images the EU asked to have removed are images from unrelated conflicts and video games portrayed as geniune images of the current events, so blatant disinformation.
It’s in the request made by the EU. The Politico article made up the part where all graphic images are to be removed.
Politico is engaged in blatant disinformation. How surprising. The actual text of the letter from the EU is online and it is very clear what they are demanding.
Ah
I kinda want to see if we can post enough screenshots from DayZ and Left 4 Dead, calling them photos from our neighborhood to get the AI media to report on a global zombie virus.
That is context I did not have and falls under fake news / propaganda. I have no problem seeing dumb false shit removed.
The images in question were photos and videos from previous conflicts or video games being passed off as photos and videos of the ongoing conflict.
This is not a free speech issue this is a prevention of misinformation.
No other institution can instill punishment for speech except the government, so freedom of speech from the government means freedom of speech absolute. Joe Blogs migh have a pop at me, but then he’s guilty of assault. My employer might decide my views are not consistent with theirs, but unless I was acting as their representative at the time most decent worker protection laws across the globe would deem it as you acting as a private individual, and therefore none of your employer’s concern.
Now, is it polite, civil and sociable to say certain things? No, but if I’m prepared to contravene social etiquette, I can say whatever I want under a system of protected speech from the government.
Thank you! I wrote my edit before I read any replies but that’s exactly it 👍
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.
Exactly
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?
I believe the classic example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater
Yeah, but when explaining it to someone with zero empathy, they dont understand unless it’s explicitly about them…
If “fire in a theater” would work on that person, it would have already. It’s not some obscure example no one’s ever heard of before…
Which ironically is actually legal in the US. The big lines are libel, slander, defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, fraud, threats and child pornography.
Assuming the person is not actually a child abuser, the example they used would actually cross the line in the US but really only for a civil case, rather than criminal. It wouldn’t even count as incitement unless he was calling for the alleged child abuser to be lynched or something, even “someone ought to string up this child abuser” probably doesn’t count as incitement.
No I don’t personally believe in absolute free speech I was just trying to offer perspective in response to a comment that was rejecting the concept outright.
I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though.
That’s so much sadder than if you were being authentically stupid…
What’s sad is you being mean to a person for simply making a comment on a social media platform.
Wait…
I thought you just said you were trolling…
Now your serious and it was a legitimate question?
JK, I don’t give a fuck, I’m not even sure why I didn’t block you already.
What? I never said I was trolling. I said I was offering a different perspective.
It’s so bizarre how people are attacking me for that. You would think I said something awful.
I did enjoy the reaction that my original comment got but only because the comment wasn’t intended to stir up controversy or invoke a strong reaction but clearly has.
I was contributing to a conversation with a comment that I feel was quite harmless. I didn’t know free speech absolutism was such a feather rustling topic.
Did you really just go from “I think history shows us that the alternative is worse” to this?
cringe
Enjoying people being unhappy with you is not a very good life outlook.
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.
Indeed. Something the USA probably will never learn
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.
On the flip side, i learned from the finest Free Speech Absolutist that absolute free speech is absolute bullshit, as it’s less about free speech and more about my speech.
deleted by creator
I am not American. I am European. Thanks for playing. Try to read what someone actually wrote next time.