BAN X in Europe - Europeans against Elon Musk - Petition to the European Commission
ban-x-in.eu
This petition introduces the campaign for the ban of Elon Musk's social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) in the European Union.

Crossposting here as I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom

  • Dalaryous@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    5 months ago

    So funny to see how a media campaign gets so many sheep following and beleiving without questioning. All they have to scream is fascist repadidly and sheep will repeat.

    While government was in control of Twitter and silenced and censored harvard educated doctors and professors about Covid to push the vaccine and make billions, nobody screamed Twitter was fascist. Or did you forget the twitter files? Suddendly twitter is bad once gov censorship is gone but Facebook/Threads is ok because things gov wants to censor is being censored.

    I’m not saying social media is not bad and yes, needs to be controlled but seriously use a little bit of your brain before blindly repeating someone else’s words. Learn history, see a bit from other angles and maybe think a bit why Twitter is being singled out right now.

    Social media is bad but lack of critical thinking is way way worse.

  • Viri4thus@feddit.org
    1·
    5 months ago

    “I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom.”

    *uses change.org instead of the EU mechanism to submit petitions to the parliament…

    This has to have been made by an American living in Europe.

    • R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0·
      5 months ago

      Because we have to defend democracy or it will be eroded. We should not stand by idly as misinformation and corporate interests continue to cripple it. Just because people are voting against their best interests does not mean they are no longer their best interests.

  • Vanth@reddthat.comEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    Idk why a ban is necessary. Just remove some of the protections so they can be held liable for things they should be held liable for.

    They’re currently not liable for third-party content (if they have reasonable moderation policies and respond in a timely manner to requests, yada yada). But if they promote it, they are no longer a passive hosting platform; they are actively promoting content so should be held proportionately liable for that content.

  • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
    04·
    5 months ago

    Let me guess, you think Russia/China/etc. banning websites is bad (because obviously they are doing it due to being authoriatarian regimes and to not let people learn the truth), and EU (or generally any western country) banning websites is good (because obviously it would be done to protect democracy and people from consuming dangerous misinformation)?
    Did I miss anything? :)

    • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      5 months ago

      Yes, you missed how social media algorithms work, having captivated the attention of whole nations, and carefully control every bit of information that pass in front of your eyes, then some billionaire buying said mechanism and taking part in the government he helped elected, then threatening the nations that have banned him that they will lose the next elections. Did I miss anything?

      Real democracies need to shield themselves from this kind of corporate interference, yet most people don’t even understand how it works, or why Cambridge Analytica was a big hit, or where are these experts now and how they are making a living.

      • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
        03·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, so just as I said - good guys banning social medias is good because they are the good guys protecting the democracy against bad people and so on, and bad guys banning social medias is bad because they are the bad guys censoring the truth from oppressed people or something.

        No hypocrisy here :)

        • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          5 months ago

          This is not a matter of opinion, rather than centralized control of information.

          Musk can shadow ban you, for example, nobody granted him that power except he was able to by it.

          This type of social media are a power structure that is despotic in nature, and it is deeply problematic for democracies.

          It is not like a nation state banning a religious minority or an anarchist site. That would be censoring of opinions.

          In the case of Xitter, it is Musk and a team of political advertising engineers doing the censorship. So they are worse than Nazi apologists for example. The latter we only anticipate they will impose censorhip (let alone murder) once they are in power.

          Xitter has that power already at orders of magnitude above what traditional media outlets have. He controls the flow of information. (And he made it a fucking nazi bar right enough).

          But I will grant you that we should not expect nation states to ban Xitter. We should aim for its destruction.

          • 9bananas@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            you’re arguing government action with a user that hails from “@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org”.

            i don’t foresee a fruitful discussion, mate…

    • tekato@lemmy.world
      0·
      5 months ago

      Pointing out their hypocrisy will not help anybody. The best you can do is sit down and watch this comedy from the sidelines.

      • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
        02·
        5 months ago

        Pointing out their hypocrisy will not help anybody.

        I choose to, perhaps naively, think that some people might actually recognize how absurd this is, and hopefully change their opinion :)

        The best you can do is sit down and watch this comedy from the sidelines.

        Just “watching comedy from the sidelines” can result in one day waking up in a totalitarian hell :/
        (Not that my shitposting will change much of course :/)