Non americans of lemmy, would you support a ban on american social media on your country?
Non americans of lemmy, would you support a ban on american social media on your country?
EU absolutely is a country.
As a Brazilian, yes. I doubt anything halfway decent would show up instead, which probably sounds better
An MP I really admire in Ontario is pushing for Elections Canada to protect our electoral process from the Grand Twit's interference, so that's something. I'd prefer a ban.
Even though the Proud crowd are big operators in Canada, banning Yankee social media would maybe help lower the ragebait volume a bit. Whatever makes a dent.
I didn't need a ban. They enshitified and I moved on. All Meta apps (including WhatsApp) gone. X/Twitter gone. LinkedIn gone. Reddit gone.
Now I use Lemmy, Mastodon/BlueSky, and Signal.
the questions wasn't regarding you, it was regarding everyone else
I'm not American.
A ban would fix a lot of problems. But only because the platforms moderate things to match the platform owners opinions.
Platforms enabling free speech are beneficial.
I know I'm not the target of this question, but as American I'd like to see the reverse. I wanna see more non American social media in the US.
I’m americana and would definitely support a ban of American Social media in my country.
I am so tempted, so tempted to write yes. But no, at the end of the day, I don't think speech should be regulated like that. If we as a society don't learn to distinguish truth from bullshit, democracy can't survive.
EU absolutely is a country.
Also, fuck you.
As a Canadian, yes please. Their culture infiltrates ours so much that there are some people who believe in the American superiority and don't understand that we're two different peoples, with very different approaches to how we should live and treat others. Obviously, we Canadians are not perfect, and we have more in common than not but it's disheartening to hear Canadians (including people in my own inner circle) view our country as nothing but the USA's little bitch.
I get the world is sliding right, and our political pendulum definitely swings. But I worry that in the efforts to acknowledge the harms that we've done (and currently do) to people in our own country, that the backlash to those policies and acknowledgments will cause us to lose things that I'm proud of and freedoms that I enjoy.
I agree, I worked a Canadian election years ago and a voter left the booth to ask me how to vote for a particular American political party because they couldn't find it on the ballot. I imagine things have only gotten worse since then.
UK. yes. as well as US news, import export.
I’m American, and I would support a ban of American social media in my country.
Seconded. And I live in a swing state so my opinion means more.
In it's current form? Absolutely. Optimizing for anger is not doing us any favours
I’m an American and I think America social media should be banned.
That is, closed-source, centralized for-profit social media platforms that will inevitably devolve into ads and data collection machines should be banned.
The problem isn’t the country that hosts the platform. The problem is the incentive structure for social media to profit off its users.
Platforms that are either FOSS, run by non-profits, or pay-to-use don’t have an intrinsic incentive to exploit its users and can, in theory, be run ethically and sustainably.
Absolutely. It's basically just allowing American tech companies to decide who's leading the country. FrP (furthest right of the mainstream parties) is set to win the next election and it's not because they have good ideas. It's because of propaganda.
Also, the person you elected has threatened an EU member state with war, so there's that.
I would love that! Deleting my Facebook account would cripple my social life and ability to keep up with events in the community. It's the only thing keeping me in. Giving everyone a reason to find other places to organize would be amazing!
I wouldn't welcome a ban in general but yeah, if everyone was off Facebook here it would make things so much better. It's the only way to connect and follow social organizations and small businesses. Hate it.
Twitter is not a social media anymore, it is a propaganda platform. There are regulations for media in civilized places. Twitter does not respect the law, thus it shall be banned.
If it were up to me it would be seized, because there is a public interest to this platform. Seizing it to make the algorithm transparent, fair and legal.
I really hope the EU will ban it, but I'm afraid they will ask firmly for "some changes", and claim victory over whatever "small change" is in reality. Their investigation took too long and the lead was replaced already. Then they will declare that "recent events and information were not taken in account" and go on for another N years of investigations.
No. But a ban on algorithms would be nice.
Oh yes! Build Lemmy entirely from one line of lambda calculus.
While we're at it, the vegans can stop consuming inorganic chemicals.
;-)
I bet you actually know what I am referring to ;-)
Yeah. It would help usher in a new era of social media and communities. Fb, insta, tiktok, reddit have killed smaller communities and websites. And I miss them. Internet needs to die to be born again.
Well, EU is not a country, but yeah, they should either comply with our rules (which currently neither one of them does), or get fucked out of here.
I hope some local, ActivityPub based service would appear in the vacuum.
I think regulation would be the proper course of action, here. I mean neither do we ban American cars in Europe. We just say they have to play by our rules or they can't do business here. So I wouldn't support a ban based on country of origin. But regulation what they can and can not do.
How do you regulate closed-source code to be free from back doors for spying and sabotage, and black-box feed shaping algorithms to not have bias and censorship for mass manipulation?
Don't rely on enemy services in a cold war, no matter how much they seem to follow your regulations.
I think that works like all other regulations. Like for example food, chicken, cars and machinery. You take samples and check them. Or have a court decide to have a look at the paperwork... If anything looks fishy or people get harmed... Investigate. And we have investigators and experts in domains available. It's fairly easy to do. And decisions regularly rely on expert opinion...
And I don't view myself as the enemy in a cold war. I'm opposed to the current administration of the USA. But that's pretty much it. I'm not necessarily in active combat against the economy... Well... I am against privacy invading platforms. But because they invade privacy, and not because they are from a certain country.
Yes, absolutely.
It isn't even for social media's general toxicity. It is because these Us companies are behaving so badly. Illegally. They are now openly provoking their own ban, but they think the EU is so toothless that they can get away with anything.
No, because regulation works; or can work. We can require them to follow our laws because they're invested in our market too.
There are regular fines for GDPR violations for example; it just feels like our checks and fines need to happen faster and harder.
China regulates their platforms like TikTok differently in their own country than outside. We can require the same.
How do you regulate closed-source code to be free from back doors for spying and sabotage, and black-box feed shaping algorithms to not have bias and shadow-censorship for mass manipulation?
Don't rely on enemy services in a cold war, no matter how much they seem to follow your regulations.
black-box feed shaping algorithms
Recent EU legislation already requires insight into feed algorithms. They're not allowed to be black-box on huge platforms.
Back-doors is another issue, but depending on the kind of personal data, EU legislation already requires separation and different levels of protection.
If data being sent to the US can not be considered safe, it can not be transferred without explicit and informed consent. US firms create EU firms to have regional legal entities. They can store private data locally, within the EU.
For one, you can make it illegal for them to be a "black-box" in the first place
That would still leave social media in the hands of foreign corporations. I'd prefer stuff like Lemmy and Mastodon.
Tons of bots here would have the same impact
Yes. Current oligarch-owned USA considers Europe an enemy because of its liberal and leftist values. Look how they've already turned us, famously allergic to fascism, towards fascism once again.
We can't rely on enemy services in a cold war. We can't review closed-source code to be free from back doors for spying and sabotage, or black-box feed shaping algorithms to not have bias and shadow-censorship for mass manipulation.
EU must ban all US-made smart products for its own safety. All closed-source software and electronics that can be used for strategic manipulation and sabotage – Google, Apple, Amazon, all of it.
They are in every European citizen's pockets, desktops, and server rooms. They know way too much about us, and have every opportunity to manipulate us:
- Make the most intelligent people never stumble upon important information on social media.
- Make the most compatible people never meet each other on dating sites.
- Make the most valuable people never find career-making jobs on work-centered social media.
'
Black box recommendation algorithms in the control of one country enables the slow, strategic destruction of Europe by billions of unnoticeable manipulations. CIA has done this shit before, and now it's being given more power than ever to do so.
China banned that shit, and China has been successful partly for its detachment from US far-right propaganda. They have also made subtle mass-manipulation difficult by making their own services.
We have functional, clunky open-source software that could easily be fitted for any purpose with the money we waste propping up foreign monopolies sabotaging us. Europe has taken a huge risk. I suspect bribery.
Yes. I've already started replacing everything I can with Europe- or Japan- or Korea-made stuff. We have to learn to be self-sufficient and vigilant. Latest was my decision to ditch stability.ai, which is anyway the most horrendous collection of dark patterns I've ever seen, with dezgo.com , which is French and as transparent as can be.
I agree with everything you said except this bit:
China banned that shit, and China has been successful partly for its detachment from US far-right propaganda.
China loves US far right propaganda, the amount of Chinese people reeeeing about DEI or wokeism or the LGBTs, and fellating the South African Nazi who inherited wealth from an apartheid labour emerald mine and (for some reason, still) J. Lopsterson is kind boggling.
The common view in China is that the US is too progressive and needs to clamp down on minority rights and immigration... The mind boggles.
But yes, also fully fuck US social media and tech monopolies.
But the EU had taken risks so far as we think when push comes to shove we'll be on the same side as the US, ignoring that the US still seems to think realpolitik is an appropriate course of action. Never trust a realpoliker to have your back.
For-profit social media, certainly. I don't trust it anymore. Astroturfing, data-harvesting, I feel like they're all made to fuck us over in some way.
Astroturfing, data-harvesting, I feel like they're all made to fuck us over in some way.
Voice of Ron Howard cuts in: "They were."
Agreed
I am American and I would support a ban on American social media in my country.
Yeah. We hate our social media, and don't trust our government. Everyone else should absolutely ban our social media, yesterday, if not sooner.
Edit: And in response to lots of much more reasonable responses here, than mine: spot on!
The real wisdom is to ban our (United States) shitty social media's shitty behaviors, rather than playing platform bop-a-mole.
You shouldn't feel too bad or particularly exceptional, it's pretty common everywhere.
For example https://www.tv4.se/artikel/4A3ctxFCytb4R7kKQanI9H/sds-troll-factory-revealed-reporter-worked-undercover
There's hardly any big Swedish online communities where you don't run into their far-right talking points. r/Sweden is full of them and the largest Swedish forums is full of blatant racism and so is the Swedish community on Lemmy even. The pendulum is swinging hard right all across the "west"
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have fucked up public discourse. They reward rage-bait content, they're addictive by design, encourage tribalism, and they use an opaque algorithm to promote/demote posts. They silently censor ideas and content. Meta censors news in Canada.
Zuckerberg and Musk appear to have political aims they are using their platforms to promote.
Why would I want that? I get the slippery slope argument, but they are a slippery slope already.
I wouldn't lump in YT with those other two. YT definitely had problems but it has a lot of great content found no-where else
You could have said the exact same thing about any of the other socmed platforms before they enshittified.
Fuck no. The Americans provide 90% of our entertainment and they're actually fun people to interact with and chat with (the ones that aren't wearing MAGA hats that is). What am I gonna go without Americans on social media? Talk about fucking Table Mountain? Join the Europeans in looking down on the USA for everything and always acting like their own shit doesn't stink?
Fuck that, I'd start using VPNs.
They can join us on non-American social media.
Ah that's a fair compromise. In that case, assuming they were all going to join, I'd go for the non Elon / Zuck / Spez run platform for sure.
That just makes me think, this is a strange question for the fediverse because I'm pretty sure a fair amount of instances aren't American run already.
Absolutely not. I'll rather choose for myself which content I consume than have the government choose it for me.
Based.
And freepilled
Not banning any content, just the giant social media platforms with their purposely biased feeds. The content will reach non-banned social media and have a less biased weighting in feeds here.
No, but that's not to say I wouldn't be delighted to see Xitter and Meta burn. Ultimately, though, we need laws that require transparency and impartiality on the part of the owners, similar to the rules we have for television news outlets, and those rules need enforcing in no uncertain terms. It doesn't matter, then, if the service is native or foreign.
No, not if they follow our laws. That being said I don't use much social media.
How could you make sure that closed-source code follows our laws? That it has no back doors for spying and sabotage, and that social media feed shaping algorithms have no bias and shadow-censorship for mass manipulation? You can't, you need to ban it.
No. That wouldn't solve anything. What is needed are very harsh punishments for companies abusing their power / position, instead of the slap on the wrist they currently are.
It would remove the possibility of feed shaping algorithm bias for mass manipulation, and back doors for spying and sabotage.
It would achieve diversification of the social media landscape.
Not a blanket ban no, but if they constantly break our laws then yes. And I'm perfectly ok with laws that some would decry as censorship (anti-hate-speech, fact-checking) or claim makes business impossible (strict interpretations of GDPR).
Is "not constantly breaking our laws" enough? They are in our pockets, desktops, and server rooms. They know way too much about us, and have the opportunity to spy, manipulate, and sabotage.
Even if we had a way to make sure foreign social media is not doing subtle mass manipulation with their black-box feed shaping algorithms, tailored bias, and shadow-censorship, we can’t make sure closed-source code doesn't have back doors for spying and sabotage. You have to ban it to be safe, which is what China does, mostly.
I am actively avoiding US social media accounts, blocking US politics channels and stepping away from a number of US-based services altogether.
If the government doesn't do it, I'll do as much of it as I can. Voting with your wallet is some US anarchocapitalist nonsense, but if my disgust removes incentives I'll take it as a side benefit.
Voting with your wallet is some US anarchocapitalist nonsense
I don't understand what you mean.
Man, such an exhausting tangent to go on.
Oversimplifying, "vote with your wallet" is a dereliction of duty of regulation, assuming that magical market forces will impose positive outcomes if we all just chip in on some sort of soft boycott.
In practice, at scale, people can't be expected to run a personal audit of all the money they spend or all the things they need. Money isn't support. Support is support. Preventing market forces from doing garbage stuff is what regulations are for, not consumer spending choices.
They mean it doesn't work. "Vote with your wallet" is pushed heavily by billionaires. Almost like they have the biggest wallets...
Yep
i live in Brazil, and would be 100% down with X being banned, even Instagram or Facebook if necessary.
naah fuck that, I think the internet should go back to being as unregulated and wild as possible
That means no big platforms, but instead smaller niche sites.
If big US tech companies exist, we can't have a wild and free web.
That’s kind of how we got here
People have lost their minds because of a recommender algorithm and echo chambers. Ai agents are going to tear us to shreds.
No
No I would not.
no, i support an open internet. censorship is stupid and generally easily worked around. which usually leads to an escalation to make it more and more difficult, until you have chinese-style internet.
The aim of the ban is not censorship -- it's to free ourselves from the purposely biased feed shaping algorithms mass-manipulating our populace. The content would be allowed, but it would be promoted by human upvotes, not corporate and CIA interests.
So not easy to work around and by far most of the population will not do it, so are not exposed to whatever is blocked, so the blockage works...?
Slight tangent but I have never until recent days considered social media companies to be American. I know on reflection they are but as a Scot I had used FB, Twitter and Insta for years without ever thinking they were American social media, just social media cos all my friends and family were there.
I’ve only retained Insta now, all else is Fedi. At the very least ban until age 16.
All meta apps, they're used for our government's propaganda, yes.
I don't believe censorship is the solution there. It can be used for good, but more often than not it's the kind of system that can be massively misused to silence inconvenient information.
The best solution is teaching people to think critically early on so they learn to question information and seek both sides of the story before drawing conclusions and avoid confirmation bias. Don't silence misinformation, teach the tools to render misinformation worthless.
But such a ban would not come because of censorship. It is not these social media users and their opinions, but these companies that need to get banned.
Texas GOP Platform:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
You might be interested in this piece from a government funded Australian think tank about escaping the current social media environment
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/social-media-as-it-should-be/
Nope
ON or IN ? It changes the meaning significantly.
Illegal above the surface.
Time to spend the day in the basement where it's legal to doomscroll on nazitter and kremlin-book
As an American, I would support such a ban. the rest of the world shouldn't be subjected to American social media.
UK, and no, censorship is bad, especially if it's controlled by a capitalist government.
But... the foreign black-box feed shaping algorithms are controlled by oligarch capitalists, and they are doing shadow-censorship. Ever thought about why Brexit won?
If you banned the giant social media platforms, people would come to Lemmy, freeing themselves from what you say is bad.
Only if it's a capitalist government? So you're okay with censorship by fascist, socialist, communist and totalitarian governments?
Fascism is a form of capitalism.
As @[email protected] pointed out, I said "especially", and that is because capitalist governments are incentivised to use censorship in a uniquely negative way against workers.
In theory socialist and communist governments should only employ censorship to protect workers, but history has shown that in practice that isn't always the case and, as Maxim Gorky pointed out, even when it is, it often creates more problems than it solves.
They said "especially", not "only". your question is still partly valid why he would be "more ok" with other types of governmental structures.
I sure hope everyone who wants to ban these things actually has plans to create their own content or Lemmy's gonna become quite empty.
Surely squeezing people out of social media giants would bring many more people to Lemmy?
empty-er
That’s a double edged sword right there. If you don’t allow external influences, you block both good and bad types of conversations. What you’re left with is only the local conversation, which might be balanced or biased depending on where you live.
If you live under a dictatorship, you might really want some of that external influence. If you can trust that the local conversation is good and balanced, banning Twitter and Meta won’t have any serious drawbacks.
The question is not about banning foreigners from our social media, it's about banning foreign-controlled social media. The Americans can join us here on Lemmy.
I guess I should have use a more specific term. "External influence" is just such a short an convenient concept, but it's clearly way too broad. What I meant to say is pretty much what you seem to be getting at. The idea is, that banning websites and services will limit the extent of influence one government can intentionally have on another nation. Individual citizens are going to be doing their own thing anyway, and that's a separate matter.
Here's a clarification that didn't fit into the previous post. You can view these things form the perspective of the local government that aims to maintain status quo. If some foreign social media platform is having a negative impact on your country, banning the platform should be a net positive. However, who defines these values? Is it good for the freedom of the people, good for the people in power, or something entirely different. All of that depends on the circumstances and the country you're in. If the EU blocks Xitter, it's not quite the same when China is doing the that.
Commercial social media platforms already mark certain conversations as bad and censor them. Both Zuckerberg and Musk seem to have political goals and have changed how their platforms work to promote them.
If they were a free marketplace of ideas, I'd agree. But while Facebook is hiding news in Canada, YouTube is promoting rage-bait, and Twitter is making weird tweaks for Musk's self confidence, they seem like they're trying to promote a US worldview.
It'd be interesting to see what would replace them if they weren't available.
I've also noticed that every LLM I've used has a political agenda of some sort. If you try to make it write material of controversial or questionable nature, you'll run into some issues. You'll also notice, that many LLMs prefer to give everything a rather wholesome twist whenever possible. Not really a bad thing IMO, but I must say that these tools are not completely neutral when it comes to sensitive matters. Personally, I don't really have a problem with these moral preferences, but I also know some people who most certainly do.
When companies have a vast multinational audience, they need to consider these kinds of matters. It applies to social media companies too, and they already have experience with this, while various LLM companies are still learning this game. We've already seen how social media platforms have been used to promote the agenda of the company behind them, and I believe we'll see the same with LLMs. Once LLMs become an inseparable part of everyday life, there will be more political pressure to push a specific narrative to the users, just like there currently is with social media platforms.
No. How much shit do we need to ban before you dumb fucks understand prohibition never fucking works and only fuels more crime.
China banned many foreign services and made their own substitutes. What crime is being fueled? Bypassing the great firewall using VPNs is insignificant because most people are on the recommended domestic social media. This way China shut out most of enemy manipulation and propaganda, which is why I support the ban in the EU.
Are you trolling or are you really that fucking naive?
Two points:
- Can you unban abortion and harder drugs then please?
- Gun/ammunition banning/control has been shown to drastically reduce mass murders and shootings. Similar to how needing a license to drive a car has dramatically increased road safety.
Yeah banning handguns didn't work at all for us fucksake, even the ducks are packing now
No. And I would continue helping people evade whatever censorship a government tries to impose on them.
I don't know, but I really would like to see country specific social media.
Do you want nationalism? Because that seems like a good way to get it.
No I just mean having more local flavour in a platform might be fun.
It gets better when the nationalism gets to the socialist part
There is a Paradox of Tolerance that essentially says that if you are tolerant of the intolerant, all tolerance will eventually be overrun.
This is what's currently happening in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I don't think that banning them is going to fix anything, but sanctions for not controlling the platform and prosecuting and punishing perpetrators is going to make an impact felt way beyond simply banning a platform.
Being in a civil society requires effort. So far the effort in curtailing the extremism embodied by USA social media has been incidental at best.
Disclaimer: I am American, but just want to point out the problem with any proposed censorship:
So y'all know VPNs exist right?
Like, look at the red states here in the US, they just bypass the "Age Verification" with VPNs.
So what's the point?
Are y'all banning VPNs too?
Doesn't that feel similar to umm...
People's Republic of China and the "Great Firewall"?
Are y'all sure that's the future y'all wanna have?
The vast majority of people don't have a clue what a VPN is. Even people that use them at work mostly see VPNs as IT voodoo they have to click on to get their job done.
You know you can just educate people, right? lts a lot more constructive than being an arrogant dick who expects everyone to arrive at all scenarios with perfect knowledge.
No. But I would like them to be forced to use activitypub to operate.
Twitter: yes 1000 percent. Meta: businesses, landlords and social workers communicate via whatsapp here so I'd prefer bigger fines and more pressure on meta.
Yes, I use signal messenger, but I also quite literally need WhatsApp unfortunately.
I mean... if whatsapp get banned, people would just use something else, or just use sms.
I would not. Why? It won't fix anything. People would just switch to TikTok or Telegram or something, which is not that much better
Surely the banning government would recommend Loops, Pixelfed, Lemmy, Mastodon, and Signal.
No - just like I don't want to ban people having a conversation in a pub about a topic I don't like even if they just tell lies to each other.
If it was up to the EU we'd still believe there was no chance in the world the Corona Covid virus could have ever come from a Chinese lab and even suggesting it should have you banned from social media. Free float of ideas and let the best argument win.
I still don't understand how it ever was a controversial thought. Like, there was a virus studying lab nearby, even if you don't have any proof, it should never be labelled as a conspiracy, given it's pretty viable theory.
It was my personal theory since the beginning - a designer virus accidentally released before it was finished.
China was frothing at the mouth any time someone mentioned it.
Australian politician said "there should be an investigation into wuhan" and China slapped a 100% tarrif on Australian wine IIRC.
How about when one of the people in the pub conversing is an enemy agent in a cold war, always telling lies?
That would be the equivalent of what we do now: we let foreign social media govern who of us converses with whom about what, by shaping our feeds with black-box recommendation algorithms.
I'd rather see their methods of profit be made illegal. Not all at once. Let them try to find loopholes and other unethical ways of making obscene amounts of money, and make those illegal too.
Maybe they can switch to a paid model out of necessity, and then they wouldn't be quite as omnipresent.
100% yes. They have shown time and time again to do whatever the fuck they like with no regard to laws.
I am American so I can't really answer but what would count as American social media?
I feel like it would be most large social network sites and an unpredictable amount of smaller ones
monopolistic social media owned by big tech american companies, like X, Instagram and Facebook.
...can you help ban them in the US, too, please?
Absolutely.
Oh lord yes!
I'd support one in America lol
Yes. (EU)
EUian here. I tend to say no, with a big "but" (insert Sir Mix-a-Lot joke here): I would expect legislation to govern effective content moderation by the platforms. No cutting corners to save money.
I've heard some great ideas around making algorithms open, splitting platforms apart (Meta world have to divest one of Instagram or Facebook), and splitting businesses apart (Google search would need separate ownership from YouTube), etc.
Why would I do that?
election fraud
No, it's how the various clubs I'm in plan and coordinate things.
I'm from the US and live in Japan and I'd still support it. I don't think it's the solution, but putting all the big ones in time out would at least allow competition and allow finding means to address the real issues (paradox of intolerance, balancing free speech with some way to handle disinformation and the like, and probably more I'm not thinking of).
I'd tolerate it, but not support it. Forcefully taking them away gains these platforms even more support and demand. Only when people seek for alternatives or a change on their own, we can solve the problems.
One way to promote alternatives is to make those platforms harder to use.
I don't consider that promotion. Think from the perspective of the people who happily use US big corpo social media. When you're forced to consume B, because A is banned, you're likely not giving B a fair chance, even if it would have otherwise convinced you.
(Obviously you must still enforce rules and ban the platforms that don't abide.)
No. I have friends who are American and it's much more feasible to communicate with them through social media since they live so far away from me. It'd also mean one of my favourite sites ever (Tumblr) would be inaccessible to me.
They can join us on non-American social media.
Instant yes.
Only on Lemmy folks , people who complain about their freedoms being taken out, media censorship against their ideology and living in a LITERAL dictatorship since Trump took power, who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information
That very same people actively demanding for information shared on social networks to be controlled, networks to be shutdown and people to be censored based on unknown and ambiguous criteria, without even understanding the implications of it.
Details at six
And for your question? No. People is free to choose what to think, listen, say or read. Fucking fascists
I think it has something to do with how freedom of speech is understood in Europe and USA. In Europe it's more acceptable to think that one's freedom of speech should not, in practice, mute someone else's, by frightening them from speaking out, or by the majority drowning out their voice before it can be heard. And that protecting this is something worth taking action for.
The US has shown itself to be a bad faith actor, and support misinformation and propaganda over reality.
Letting that run wild is not healthy for society.
Musk having a platform to spout lies and slander against the UK and the EU demands a response.
Yes
