EU absolutely is a country.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.

    • CybranM@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 个月前

      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

        • CybranM@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 个月前

          Perhaps, but you could remove Twitter today and not lose anything of value. There are alternatives for the first two but not for YT

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      7 个月前

      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.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 个月前

      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.

      • biofaust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 个月前

        Sadly, the EU recently did exactly the opposite, by taking Twitter off the DMA VLOPs list for lack of a large business user base dependent on its services.

        Practically Musk cratered it in order to snap off of what he sees as shackles.

  • Richard@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    7 个月前

    i live in Brazil, and would be 100% down with X being banned, even Instagram or Facebook if necessary.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 个月前

      Voting with your wallet is some US anarchocapitalist nonsense

      I don’t understand what you mean.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 个月前

        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.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 个月前

        They mean it doesn’t work. “Vote with your wallet” is pushed heavily by billionaires. Almost like they have the biggest wallets…

  • python@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    7 个月前

    naah fuck that, I think the internet should go back to being as unregulated and wild as possible

    • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 个月前

      People have lost their minds because of a recommender algorithm and echo chambers. Ai agents are going to tear us to shreds.

    • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 个月前

      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.

  • renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.

  • Nicht BurningTurtle@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    7 个月前

    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.

    • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 个月前

      It would remove the possibility of feed shaping algorithm bias for mass manipulation, and back doors for spying and sabotage.

  • Antaeus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 个月前

    Danish person here.

    Yes. Ban Google, Meta, X and all the rest. Let’s use a bit of EU funds to fund a privacy respecting social media that is NOT controlled by the US or China.

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 个月前

      Oh yes! Build Lemmy entirely from one line of lambda calculus.

      While we’re at it, the vegans can stop consuming inorganic chemicals.

      ;-)

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        7 个月前

        I hate how in common parlance “algorithm” has become synonymous with “recommender system”, when it’s so much more basic of a concept. But whenever I used to gripe about it, or inform people of the more specific terminology back on reddit I was downvoted. So thanks to you for bringing it up first.

        • guy@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 个月前

          I suppose you got downvoted because it’s such an ‘Um actually it’s GNU/Linux’ thing to say. You are surely technically correct, but most people understand what’s implicated and don’t appreciate a know-it-all correcting them.

          For myself, I don’t care. I just learned a new name for social media algorithms with ‘recommender system’.

          • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 个月前

            most people understand

            I dunno, maybe? For me it still seems like a different shaping of the language, that some people now use and I haven’t got used to yet. And there is value sometimes, I think, in reminding ourselves that such and such a concept has wider meaning or application than one particularly common one.

        • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 个月前

          I do. Algorithms to target media to people according to individual data, typically for outcomes that benefit the company and advertisers rather than the consumer.

          And I know that people against ‘chemicals’ in their food, are meaning industrially manufactured chemicals, typically for increasing appeal of the food with decreased cost, rather than fot the health of the consumer.

          Still, the method to sort a list is an algorithm, and salt is a chemical, and salbutamol is a drug - and whilst I’ve gotten used to the latter two in “oh no I don’t want this” parlance, using ‘algorithm’ to mean only that sort of algorithm still feels a bit absurdist to me.

  • morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    7 个月前

    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.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 个月前

      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…?

    • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 个月前

      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.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.