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.

  • rentar42@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    9 months ago

    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).

    • crandlecan@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I am not American. I am European. Thanks for playing. Try to read what someone actually wrote next time.

    • stealthnerd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        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.

      • zhl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Annoyed_🦀 🏅@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • paprika@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.

        Like, when? What are some examples? Back up your bullshit.