Shouldn’t they want it banned because it already broke the law? How many lines have to be crossed before anyone does anything?
Anarchism for the rich(law does not affect them), rugged police state for the poor,
I’m not clicking the link to read this but these sort of headlines are often a result of their survey intentionally wording things like this to spin the narrative. Anyone who does in fact want it banned immediately would still say yes to the question. I’d suspect there are many such folks across Europe.
I want it banned regardless :D
100% of this European want X banned without further ado.
Yesterdaythe moment the sink carrying cancer walked in.
And ban Facebook too. It’s been breaking the law a lot longer!
So you suggest that people should see others in real life? Out and about? What are you, a savage?
Just imagine how funny it would be if people would just ditch all that shit.
i want it banned even if it doesnt
Lmao, if only
If we obstinantly refuse to call it anything else, then it as twitter shall forever remain
Weird to be that low for “continues to break the law.”
They’ll immediately ban “from the river to the sea” and prosecute everyone who says/displays it. but a multinational corporation is just allowed to break the law and maybe the politicians will at some point allowed them to face the law.
Uh. You do understand that this law breaking includes not cracking down hard enough on illegal content? Like that Hamas slogan?
I’m expressing how much their laws are bullshit. they are draconically applied on people protesting a genocide. while the question of “should the law be applied to corporations” is left open as a debatable topic.
Laws are made to protect the ingroup and bind the outgroup.
and even though it was an example of their hypocrisy and not the point of the argument I’ll say it regardless
From the river to the sea Palestine will be free
From the sea to the river Palestine will live forever
Uh. So… Prosecuting bad. Not prosecuting those who do not cooperate with the prosecutors also bad because hypocrisy.
i don’t think you get the point
I think you are just not making any sense.
Do you think maybe some laws can be bad and others good and that encouraging enforcement of a good law doesn’t mean encouraging enforcement of the bad ones?
my point is: Why when it comes to the public, laws are enforced to the letter, but for corporations, the question of “should the law apply” is a public debate instead of a “Duh. of course”?
Yeah. I understand what you mean. That is simply not true. Ok, teachable moment.
In Germany, that slogan is considered a Hamas slogan. Hamas has been classified as an extremist organization. That means that using its slogans and symbols is illegal under the same laws that make Nazi slogans and symbols illegal. That’s the hate speech and illegal content that online platforms are supposed to remove.
Failing to crack down on hate speech is one of the biggest complaints against X. If you demand that authorities to enforce EU platform laws harder, then what happens is that this slogan is suppressed harder. You understand?
I don’t like the idea of “banning” users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.
More than half are ok with any company breaking the law?
According to a new YouGov survey, a vast majority of respondents in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland (60-78%) think that the EU should take further action against X if it does not address breaches to European law brought forward by the Commission last year [1]. The majority of those (62%-73%) who wanted further action – and 47% of total participants – want X to be banned from the EU if it refuses to address these breaches [2]
20% being fine with it is still worrying to me.
20% of the population is just crazy and will believe in flat earth, young earth, essential oils, Jewish space lasers, 4d trump chess or bevolent ayatollahs.
Good point, I forgot it was a survey.
I imagine some of them are okay with fines, or strongly worded letters.
I say that, in order to save the species, ban all social media, everywhere.
but lemmy :(
You might not realize it, but the Fediverse is social media so a ban would be rather detrimental to this place.
Damn near the entire internet is “social media” but people usually mean “social networking sites”.
That’s literally not possible.
I’m not talking about from a practical standpoint I’m talking about from a theoretical standpoint.
Given that social media being a form of media where humans socialize with each other is not something that can be banned because humans are intrinsically social creatures and modern technology facilities media based communication.
What we don’t need is social media banned. We need regulation and enforcement and teeth for those regulations.
Almost all of the bad and negative parts of social media are results of companies driving profits and engagement at the cost of everything else, including the well-being of their users (Such as artificially, inflating, negativity and division because that drives more engagement).
Make the platform liable for the hate posted on them. They have algorithms manipulating what we see, those same algorithms send those messages to us for profit.
Hence the justification form holding them liable for content. Civil suits will destroy them in no time.
That’s an abysmally bad idea. This would be a wet dream for companies like Meta.
Effectively that would lock in the monopoly by huge social media platforms and absolutely no one would be able to try and make alternatives.
That idea would raise the bar for entry into social media to such a degree that only establish platforms can maintain themselves.
Which would make things like Lemmy, anything on the fedaverse, any third-party or fledgling social media platform…etc defunct overnight. And the only options would be existing, abusive, monopolistic, corporate managed platforms.
banning this website would be super good for Blue sky and mastodon
lol people will go to meta threads first, not that.
One step at a time…
And why would not these be also banned shortly thereafter?
to be clear, I do not advocate the banning of any social media website for any reason
I want it banned here too.
Ban it, do it, we are not gonna cry!
Unfortunately, the other half of the people who don’t want it banned have all the political capital.
I would like to know the percentage between if they break the law and regardless if they break the law
I think all USA/Israel social media application must be banned.
What is a Israel sozial media application?
American ones it seems like. American politicians sure love Israel for some reason.
All USA social media indirectly product of Israel .
