Shouldn't they address Yaccarino, the actual CEO? I am aware that Musk still very much pulls the strings but if this is an official communication, official channels should be used? I'm not sure, the whole thing is just weird to me.
But I do not actually disagree with the content. Content moderation is definitely an issue Musk tries to ignore.
I see no practical reason for doing so. There's one owner who has daily involvement and final decision making power that is often exercised. Of course they'd address it to him.
Thierry Breton, the author of the letter, appears to have a personal grudge against Elon Musk, and has directed several aggressive ultimatums towards him such as, "In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules," "You can run but you can't hide" and "Our teams will be ready for enforcement."
Breton is set to be the next EU Commissioner, succeeding Ursula Van Der Leyden.
I mean, maybe? But who was the leader of the Soviet Union in early World War 2? Like, obviously, for all practical purposes, it was Stalin, and he was treated as such. But he was never the head of state, and he wasn't the head of government until 1941. At a certain point, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person who actually is in charge, is in charge, and ignore the figurehead altogether.
A CEO isn't really a particularly well-defined position under companies law anyway, in most cases. It's whatever the board says it is.
It's eye opening watching these massive government organizations going after the only platform that has open sourced their algorithm and has publicly revealed the massive governmental overreach in a social media company.
Here is what Community Notes said, feels like this is a good thing to address moderation issues...
-------------
Thank you to all the contributors who’ve been active over the last few days, helping to keep people on X informed. We wanted to share some of the impact of your work:
• In just three days, you wrote notes seen tens of millions of times.
• More than 500 unique notes relating to the attacks and unfolding events are being shown on X.
• Because of the new "notes on media" feature, these notes display on an additional 3000+ posts. This number grows automatically if the relevant images and video are re-used in new posts.
• Notes related to the attacks cover a wide range of topics from out-of-context war footage, to unrelated or outdated protest/celebration videos, to fake videos made with game simulators, to claims of US funding related to conflict, to claims about specific events having taken place in the conflict, and more.
Dear EU: I disagree about "hosting illegal content". What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments. Rather than covering up what a tragedy war is, how about we work to avoid it?
> What we're seeing is uncomfortable and [more] unfiltered by governments.
If it was only about sharing graphic content I'd be on your side, but for every "uncomfortable" image you have 300 bot accounts spreading straight up fabricated images and information
The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today
Twitter is the last link of information before going on CNN &co, it's garbage tier in every aspect you can think of and there are dozens of better places to see uncomfortable and unfiltered content. People think they get the truth there but they're just one layer down in the thousands layer onion of misinformation
I'm wondering if we're talking about the right thing...
T. Breton is talking about EUROPE's REGULATION, not freedom of speech! And it's his job...
So:
* if you live in Europe (so are submitted to Europe's Laws):
- either you're European and if you dont like European Laws you need to vote for people with different opinions,
- or you're not European and then... well... leave Europe
* if you dont live in Europe then... all this doesn't matter to you! You won't be impacted so... why commenting and trying to explain what is wrong about European Laws ?
What you see on twitter is virtually never coming from first sources. Telegram would be a much better place to look at, and twitter isn't the internet archive.
The problem isn't even the propaganda or the aftermath videos themselves, it's the fake ones and the misattributed ones
Is there a non-screenshot version available of this?
The first point is about having clear policies and consistent/predictable application there-of. Thierry talks about a change regarding "latest changes in public interest policies"... does anyone have a link or information on what Twitter changed?
The second point is about timely & objective takedowns of illegal content. Third is "proportionate and effective mitigation measures to tackle the risks to public security and civil discourse stemming from disinformation."
I guess I need to dive in and read it, but the asks here make me feel the Digital Services Act demands a perfect utopian system. They are murky enough so that there is zero way I could ever be in the clear, feel confident; someone will always be accusing me of inconsistently applying my policies, or someone will always be able to say that this post or that post means I am not stemming disinformation actively enough.
It's quite the turn, but I am interested & somewhat excited to see a world where these topics are up for discussion, where there's some light on how & where these happen. But I worry that nothing is good enough, that we could have councils of wisened elders (in a diverse array of languages, with express & direct access to local cultural experts & fact checkers) approving every post that - no matter how we try - we're going to do a pretty shabby job of a lot of this. The asks don't feel moderate; they feel infinite, and feel like the asks could only be satisfied in a fantastic Utopia where everything makes sense & everyone works together. But what I do like is that these important issues are up for discussion, that we have to have some discourse about them, that they don't get to remain invisible implicit decisions within medium & large social media organizations forever.
Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean? If the EU actually cared about this topic, they would hire a bunch of people to use the already_existing community notes feature. Of course this is implying they care about the topic, which is probably irrelevant to them. They just want control of information because both sides in this war act scummy and inhumane. Of course if they were to do this they would get challenged by every other user who wants to "fact check", which rightfully dilutes their appearance of authority of truth.
It's 2023 and people still don't understand the premise of government censorship. Guess what: deleting misinformation is still censorship, it does not attack the issue itself; it only probably antagonizes the people who put said (false or not) information, and 'downgrades' the filter of the people who are actually interested in the truth. The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. We've been over this with covid already. You don't even have to be an optimist to notice that, most often than not, truth eventually comes out. And what's more interesting is that the more open and free a medium of information/discussion is, the >faster< it gets out. This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. Fabricating things not rooted in reality is harder and impossible to maintain.
> Who defines what illegal and misinformation mean?
EU regulators.
> The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging.
> This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings.
uh nope:
"The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities."
What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news.
If people saw the shear brutality and horror the only heads that would fly would be of the politicians and media that exploit conflicts for a profit.
But we can't have that. EU made sure its 'illegal' and that people need to be 'protected' from viewing the fallout of our policies.
Through out the history suppressing alternative points of view was never about protecting anything it was always about staying in power. This is no different.
> What "illegal content"? What 'disinformation'? All the gore that gets pasted on 4chan should be the opening and closing footage on every evening news.
idk if I remember them all but I've seen:
"hamas beheaded 40 babies!!!" > turns out it was 40 people, including babies, some decapitated
"hamas use trebuchets to send dead bodies" > no proof besides a very low res pic
"hamas dismember hostages by attaching them to two trucks and making them go opposite direction" > the picture was from a youtube thumbnail of a truck pulling duel, a body had been photoshoped on the rope between the two trucks
"hamas put children in cages" > turns out the video was from Syria years ago
"israel knew about it was going to be attacked but let it happen for political clout" > ok buddy but good luck proving that
The real stories are awful enough, I don't even get why people come up with these fake ones, there are real pics/vids of beheading, dead kids, &c. Even the real graphic content is getting pushed away by fake ones which sound more outlandish, people want their dose of atrocities
As somebody who has the misfortune to be living in Russia in this time, I have a very clear opinion on internet censorship and demands to prevent 'misinformation': kill it with fire.
Once the government gets to decide what's true and what's not, your country is no longer free. If the government wants to fight misinformation, it should disclose more information. If the government has an ability to silence anyone, this ability will be used to silence information harmful to the government.
Big Brother please tell exactly what I'm supposed to think. Is it a justified war of liberation and decolonization by the Palestinians or is it another senseless bout of terrorism against the peaceful state of Israel?
if you care to see twitter replaced you would regularly go to twitter and make sure it doesn't have unique, value-add content and migrate that content to a platform you deem more worthy.
finger wagging and boycotting a free-to-use website seems like nothing more than virtue signalling.
> "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" refers to a panel from a comic by Matt Bors in which a medieval peasant says "We should improve society somewhat" while a modern man, emerging from a well, replies, "Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent." The comic has been popularly used as a retort to people who imply one can't make complaints about capitalism or other aspects of social life while participating in those systems.
[+] [-] mqus|2 years ago|reply
But I do not actually disagree with the content. Content moderation is definitely an issue Musk tries to ignore.
[+] [-] minerva23|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zuider|2 years ago|reply
Breton is set to be the next EU Commissioner, succeeding Ursula Van Der Leyden.
[+] [-] rsynnott|2 years ago|reply
A CEO isn't really a particularly well-defined position under companies law anyway, in most cases. It's whatever the board says it is.
[+] [-] 3cats-in-a-coat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hersko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiosgc|2 years ago|reply
It's about moderation procedures. It's about the absence of moderation, and the hellscape that fills that void.
[+] [-] lm28469|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] invalidname|2 years ago|reply
X demonstrates plainly the importance of regulation.
[+] [-] Moldoteck|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chickchick|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hnburnsy|2 years ago|reply
-------------
Thank you to all the contributors who’ve been active over the last few days, helping to keep people on X informed. We wanted to share some of the impact of your work:
• In just three days, you wrote notes seen tens of millions of times.
• More than 500 unique notes relating to the attacks and unfolding events are being shown on X.
• Because of the new "notes on media" feature, these notes display on an additional 3000+ posts. This number grows automatically if the relevant images and video are re-used in new posts.
• Notes related to the attacks cover a wide range of topics from out-of-context war footage, to unrelated or outdated protest/celebration videos, to fake videos made with game simulators, to claims of US funding related to conflict, to claims about specific events having taken place in the conflict, and more.
https://twitter.com/CommunityNotes/status/171182415613462939...
[+] [-] exabrial|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lm28469|2 years ago|reply
If it was only about sharing graphic content I'd be on your side, but for every "uncomfortable" image you have 300 bot accounts spreading straight up fabricated images and information
The few times I go on twitter I keep wondering if it isn't just 90% bots spamming content made to trigger real users and real users believing whatever flavor of bullshit they're fed today
Twitter is the last link of information before going on CNN &co, it's garbage tier in every aspect you can think of and there are dozens of better places to see uncomfortable and unfiltered content. People think they get the truth there but they're just one layer down in the thousands layer onion of misinformation
[+] [-] sdfghswe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] test098|2 years ago|reply
how do you avoid it when the misinformation is intended to cause division, conflict, and war?
[+] [-] olivierduval|2 years ago|reply
T. Breton is talking about EUROPE's REGULATION, not freedom of speech! And it's his job...
So:
* if you live in Europe (so are submitted to Europe's Laws):
* if you dont live in Europe then... all this doesn't matter to you! You won't be impacted so... why commenting and trying to explain what is wrong about European Laws ?[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] acedTrex|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timeon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kim_Bruning|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lm28469|2 years ago|reply
The problem isn't even the propaganda or the aftermath videos themselves, it's the fake ones and the misattributed ones
[+] [-] sdfghswe|2 years ago|reply
I don't think anyone here would argue we should be deleting evidence.
[+] [-] jruohonen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisArchitect|2 years ago|reply
So many posts about this yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37839524
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37836980
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37837053
[+] [-] jauntywundrkind|2 years ago|reply
The first point is about having clear policies and consistent/predictable application there-of. Thierry talks about a change regarding "latest changes in public interest policies"... does anyone have a link or information on what Twitter changed?
The second point is about timely & objective takedowns of illegal content. Third is "proportionate and effective mitigation measures to tackle the risks to public security and civil discourse stemming from disinformation."
I guess I need to dive in and read it, but the asks here make me feel the Digital Services Act demands a perfect utopian system. They are murky enough so that there is zero way I could ever be in the clear, feel confident; someone will always be accusing me of inconsistently applying my policies, or someone will always be able to say that this post or that post means I am not stemming disinformation actively enough.
It's quite the turn, but I am interested & somewhat excited to see a world where these topics are up for discussion, where there's some light on how & where these happen. But I worry that nothing is good enough, that we could have councils of wisened elders (in a diverse array of languages, with express & direct access to local cultural experts & fact checkers) approving every post that - no matter how we try - we're going to do a pretty shabby job of a lot of this. The asks don't feel moderate; they feel infinite, and feel like the asks could only be satisfied in a fantastic Utopia where everything makes sense & everyone works together. But what I do like is that these important issues are up for discussion, that we have to have some discourse about them, that they don't get to remain invisible implicit decisions within medium & large social media organizations forever.
[+] [-] sebow|2 years ago|reply
It's 2023 and people still don't understand the premise of government censorship. Guess what: deleting misinformation is still censorship, it does not attack the issue itself; it only probably antagonizes the people who put said (false or not) information, and 'downgrades' the filter of the people who are actually interested in the truth. The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging. We've been over this with covid already. You don't even have to be an optimist to notice that, most often than not, truth eventually comes out. And what's more interesting is that the more open and free a medium of information/discussion is, the >faster< it gets out. This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings. Fabricating things not rooted in reality is harder and impossible to maintain.
[+] [-] test098|2 years ago|reply
EU regulators.
> The information being false or not is actually irrelevant, it's the process of censorship that's damaging.
> This is because even though humans are impulsive and emotional, we're still rational beings.
uh nope:
"The policy expands Facebook’s rules about what type of false information it will remove, and is largely a response to episodes in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and India in which rumors that spread on Facebook led to real-world attacks on ethnic minorities."
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-re...
[+] [-] MattPalmer1086|2 years ago|reply
The EU is asking Twitter to define their own moderation policies and enforce them.
So which is it? You want government to do this or private companies?
[+] [-] junaru|2 years ago|reply
If people saw the shear brutality and horror the only heads that would fly would be of the politicians and media that exploit conflicts for a profit.
But we can't have that. EU made sure its 'illegal' and that people need to be 'protected' from viewing the fallout of our policies.
Through out the history suppressing alternative points of view was never about protecting anything it was always about staying in power. This is no different.
[+] [-] lm28469|2 years ago|reply
idk if I remember them all but I've seen:
"hamas beheaded 40 babies!!!" > turns out it was 40 people, including babies, some decapitated
"hamas use trebuchets to send dead bodies" > no proof besides a very low res pic
"hamas dismember hostages by attaching them to two trucks and making them go opposite direction" > the picture was from a youtube thumbnail of a truck pulling duel, a body had been photoshoped on the rope between the two trucks
"hamas put children in cages" > turns out the video was from Syria years ago
"israel knew about it was going to be attacked but let it happen for political clout" > ok buddy but good luck proving that
The real stories are awful enough, I don't even get why people come up with these fake ones, there are real pics/vids of beheading, dead kids, &c. Even the real graphic content is getting pushed away by fake ones which sound more outlandish, people want their dose of atrocities
[+] [-] Youden|2 years ago|reply
There are a lot of blatant falsehoods going around that are believable enough that people don't question them.
[+] [-] 14|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jruohonen|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843274
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|2 years ago|reply
Once the government gets to decide what's true and what's not, your country is no longer free. If the government wants to fight misinformation, it should disclose more information. If the government has an ability to silence anyone, this ability will be used to silence information harmful to the government.
[+] [-] jdjdjdhhd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Am4TIfIsER0ppos|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timeon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bastard_op|2 years ago|reply
Maybe we can all finally agree anything on twitter is bullshit and stop linking to anything there as real news now, please?
TL:DR - Twitter Link, Didn't Read.
[+] [-] toolz|2 years ago|reply
finger wagging and boycotting a free-to-use website seems like nothing more than virtue signalling.
[+] [-] lm28469|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zee38484|2 years ago|reply
> Beheadings, mass shootings and other images linked to the violence targeting Israel widely shared on Elon Musk’s social media network.
This sort of gore is very illegal in EU. We do not have free speech in constitution, like US.
[+] [-] coolhand2120|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seydor|2 years ago|reply
(just check facebook ad reports. EU is constanty the top political spender in my country)