As much as I hate X, I might have to think about this one for a while. Sure, this platform is a vessel for fascist propaganda and a threat to democracy, but on the other hand, creating a legitimate precedent for banning a social network on political grounds might be a slippery slope. The EU has already made dubious reforms regarding internet freedom, like their antiterrorist bill which require website hosts to remove content whithin an hour if it is signaled to them by the police. I’m not sure if giving them more power and legitimacy in policing online content is a good idea…
Maybe it’d be an easy choice for the American left, but I’m from the French left. Along with groups such as La Quadrature du Net have been protesting reforms like the aforementioned european directive for adressing antiterrorist contents, of France’s temporary ban on Telegram during the riots or the ban of Tiktok in Kanaky during the uprising, and now we’re supposed to turn around and say “actually censorship is cool”? Are we to empower those we’re fighting in hope that they exclusively use this power against our common enemies? I’ve left Twitter the very day its purchase by the muskrat was officialized and I’ve been telling everyone I know to do as much. Sure, a european ruling would give me something I want, but I don’t trust in what comes next. There’s no way the European Union bans X and don’t end up blocking left wing fedi instances like ml or hexbear, as soon as their existence is brought to their attention.
Sorry, let me be clear. I was pointing out how if one’s strategy is to let fascist breeding grounds sit unmolested, one will need a lot more compensation than hypothetical slippery slopes. As stated, the trade off is hardly worth it.
It’s the same style of rationale for why many leftists didn’t vote Harris.
I don’t believe there is any value in X. In fact I’d say it has negative value. However, granting the UE power and legitimacy to censor any website for political reason also has a negative value, and I’m not certain which is lower.
As much as I hate X, I might have to think about this one for a while. Sure, this platform is a vessel for fascist propaganda and a threat to democracy, but on the other hand, creating a legitimate precedent for banning a social network on political grounds might be a slippery slope. The EU has already made dubious reforms regarding internet freedom, like their antiterrorist bill which require website hosts to remove content whithin an hour if it is signaled to them by the police. I’m not sure if giving them more power and legitimacy in policing online content is a good idea…
Shutting down a nontheoretical fascist breeding ground VS. a theoretical slide to 1984.
Isn’t this the lesser evilism I was fed for the last year? Isn’t this the trolley problem? This should be easy for the American left to get behind.
Instead its “okay a little fascism is okay, as a treat” and its odd to me.
Maybe it’d be an easy choice for the American left, but I’m from the French left. Along with groups such as La Quadrature du Net have been protesting reforms like the aforementioned european directive for adressing antiterrorist contents, of France’s temporary ban on Telegram during the riots or the ban of Tiktok in Kanaky during the uprising, and now we’re supposed to turn around and say “actually censorship is cool”? Are we to empower those we’re fighting in hope that they exclusively use this power against our common enemies? I’ve left Twitter the very day its purchase by the muskrat was officialized and I’ve been telling everyone I know to do as much. Sure, a european ruling would give me something I want, but I don’t trust in what comes next. There’s no way the European Union bans X and don’t end up blocking left wing fedi instances like ml or hexbear, as soon as their existence is brought to their attention.
Sorry, let me be clear. I was pointing out how if one’s strategy is to let fascist breeding grounds sit unmolested, one will need a lot more compensation than hypothetical slippery slopes. As stated, the trade off is hardly worth it.
It’s the same style of rationale for why many leftists didn’t vote Harris.
I see, sorry for the misunderstanding.
If you don’t censor hate speech and allow malicious propaganda to be the default, is there really any value in letting it be accessible?
The problem really is that the lenders of X’s debt probably have a significant influence and have a vested interest in recouping their money.
I don’t believe there is any value in X. In fact I’d say it has negative value. However, granting the UE power and legitimacy to censor any website for political reason also has a negative value, and I’m not certain which is lower.