Musk given 24 hours to address graphic images of Hamas attacks
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.
This is some "quality" reporting. Nowhere does the EU says to remove "graphic violent images", it's only asking for transparency in what gets removed and the removal of disinformation and calls to violence.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Modern "journalists" are almost always scum.
Getting rid of misinformation is great.
Getting rid of accurately reported, gruesome images because of a government mandate flies in the face of the core principles of free speech. And it would cause real damage to the world.
Remember that it was only when the world actually saw images of the Nazi concentration camps that the world actually believed it. They'd heard about it for years, but it was largely ignored.
That is the goal. The OP article and especially the headline here is misleading.
This is what is in the original letter regarding violent images: „repurposed old images of unrelated armed conflicts or military footage that actually originated from video games“.
The issue is not violent images per se. The issue is misinformation through violent images that are unrelated to the current events.
Seems to me like this is a sly way to remove any videos where Hamas is successful.
Which is weird, because seeing those videos usually gives more support for Israel.
This whole law is fucked. Leave freedom of speech alone.
Freedom of speech is mostly an American concept. In most European states we „only“ have freedom of expression and opinion (a human right). Deliberately spreading propaganda, agitation and fake news is not covered by freedom of expression and opinion. On the contrary, it can be a criminal offense.
This is not the first time Musk thinks US laws apply to the whole world or that he is above the law of the countries his businesses operate in. A part of me hopes that he gets fined and then ignores the fine. He might just be stupid enough.
See? I called him stupid. That is an expression of my opinion. Using images of violence from 2010 and claiming that they are from 2023 is not an opinion.
I think he should just take X out of the EU and watch the uproar when EU citizens can't get their fix.
Would really show who wears the pants in the relationship.
I'm specifically referring to real videos accurately described in my previous comment.
EU citizens would grumble a bit, but then just switch over to other services like Treads and Mastodon. Many of our governments already did.
We aren't loyal to a specific company, we use what is the most convenient and doesn't spit right in our faces.
I think the EU would change its rules to appease its citizens who are addicted to X.
Same reason why the US would never ban tiktok. There would be an uproar of average people who don't pay attention to these things wondering where their fix went.
It would not. The EU has funded Matrix/Element, Mastodon, even Lemmy has been developed using EU funding.
Facebook, 𝕏, Google, and similar US mega corps, can play by the rules or GTFO, the EU has alternatives.
Are you sure?
What makes you think that EU citizens would criticize X instead of the EU if X left because it didn't follow EU regulations?
Citizens can criticize, the EU hasn't been funding alternatives just to go back on its regulations.
I respect that but the images presented to the public were selected to denounce and illustrate horrendous acts commited.
Here, I'd risk there is a very high risk/probability whatever may be leaked/posted is for pure shock value, with no intention to inform or contextualize.
Intent doesn't matter. People should be allowed to document and post crimes committed against humanity
The pictures are old and don't relate to what's happening currently.
Also, what do you think the differences between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter are? Intent absolutely matters.
Intent does matter. It is so inportant it is even relevant in courts of law.
You want the images of the barbarism raging in Israel as we speak to be known to the world and that is a good thing. People need to see the acts being commited there.
Yet twitter is not, in any way, the platform for it, as those same images are very easily twisted out of context and thrown out in a fashion that will only serve to further entrench extreme positions and used for sheer shock value.
These are human lives being laid to waste, not a social media circus for browny points.
I'm not sure, but I believe this is only for social media sites. You can still document it, but social media isn't the place. I assume you'd be able to link to that, but not to the images directly, but I'm just guessing.
Yeah, I see denouncing and illustrating terrorist attacks as a good thing.
Yes, which requires an unbiase position, supplying all possible information.
Nowadays, and even more when considering twitter, that is hardly the case.
The pictures are old and unrelated to what's happening currently.
Which makes it even worse, I'd risk? If the said pictures are unrelated, why are those being pushed forward? Are we voluntarily trying to dumb ourselves?
I should have replied to the person you responded to, you are clearly on the same page I am.
You should read before you post.
You're speaking against the propaganda fueled groupthink, that's a bannable offense.
Or what lol. Rich people are above the law.
I'm glad to see for once the fines are proportional to revenue, and not a fixed amount. 6% hurts.
Will it hurt though? How are they going to collect the 6%? Do US based banks cooperate with the EU on this kind of thing? What happens if Musk just tells them to go fuck themselves?
I assume EU-based ISPs will be forced to ban access to the website for noncompliance, otherwise it would have literally no teeth whatsoever
That's actually pretty scary for the Internet.
Nah it's pretty good for the internet. We also blocked Russian propaganda outlets and shit in the EU. It's much nicer.
Oh right, I forgot you Europeans didn't have a first amendment
Guess what
We don't even have the american constitution
Amazing
Enjoy your censorship
Censorship is illegal
You are clearly missing something.
Maybe basic education can help you
Our laws are older and much more robust than the ones in the US.
They also adapt with the times.
But that just might have to do with the fact that EU politics don't cater that much to corporations but instead to the people that elected them.
Probably a lot of Xi tter customers headquatered in EU. They can say to their own banks to not send money.
how can settle for that?
when normal people spend years in single cell rooms for small offenses Lmao 🇺🇸🦅😎
This is in the EU, so your emojis don't make sense. But you are right, rich people get off way too easy the world over.
Xitter is a corporation that doesn't live in the EU
Sorry, completely off topic and not the place, but ...
your comment is perfectly complemented by your username above it.
He's gonna fuck this up, too.
He won't, we all know he won't. He'd sooner get Twitter banned from Europe than actually try to improve his platform.
The intent is to ruin twitter. That was why he used $22B of Saudi money to buy it.
That is such a win though.
Although the powers that manipulate Elmo won't like it when they can't manipulate the politics in the EU anymore.
Is his goal to get the app banned from Europe?
I could see that being the business plan.
It would be great! Europe will be better without x
X ? You mean X, formerly known as Twitter.
No, they just hate algebra
A porn actress was made accountable for similar actions in less time and with more impact.
It's almost as if billionaires are untouchable?
Has it been 24 hrs yet?
End of Wednesday in Brussels was ~7h ago. So, yes.
So, what is the followup?
Is this the thing that finally makes Musk feel some pain? You can't wiggle out of this one, EU law is pretty tight on this stuff.
Not if his goal is to run Twitter into the ground. (And I'm about 3 months or so into believing it is.)
Although I can understand that perspective, I honestly think that he's actually just very, very dumb and completely clueless about how money actually works and how businesses function. He's rich enough to never have had to learn any of that and spend his way through failure after failure. I am absolutely certain that he believed that he'd run in there, steer the ship right, and all would be well.
That was his goal but not the "right" that is usually referred to by this.
Yeah absolutely, be thought that it was easy because he didn't pause to consider any of the confounding factors - the same mistake he always makes, self drive to Mars bases he gets fixated on the fact it's possible and doesn't really consider the many things making it difficult.
I think he thought that he'd go in and don'ta big lever that turns it from biasing the left and amplifying people hating billionaires then when he turned it off everyone would cheer and clap. He's the typical idiot that has shitty political options and thinks everyone else secretly agrees bit only he's breve enough to say it.
Either you're oblivious, or you're being paid to prop up this "Elon's just a big dummy" idea.
You know he had a fair bit of involvement in some other businesses, right? His destructive behaviour has been on an entirely different level from the moment he acquired Twitter.
The investors that gave him money to buy Twitter aren't going to be happy if he intentionally squanders their money.
On the one hand, you insult me. Then you make a comment that supports my position. Very odd.
Fine, I'll bite. How am I supporting your position?
No he's very smart in that he's using Xitter to increase his influence, and thereby his wealth in the long term. Gonna cost him but he'll probably come out net-positive, even if Xitter doesn't.
If that is Net Revenue, I have some bad news for the EU. 🤣🤣🤣
I think you're thinking of profits, which is revenue minus costs.
EU fines are a percentage of global revenue, which means all the money you make in any way, anywhere in the world, before subtracting any bullshit.
Which was $4.4 billion in 2022 and is estimated to be roughly $3 billion for 2023, so the maximum fine would be 180-264 million depending on which figure is used.
For comparison, the net loss (not profit) for 2022 for twitter was 270 million.
Per occasion, and the Commission can also create a moderation enforcement team specifically for Twitter, basically forcing Twitter to have moderation, and put the cost of said moderation on Twitter, as charges separate to the fine.
Think your stats are off? You can see a post in my history with more EU focused math. If yours is better let me know and I'll update ;)
Oh shit, that’s awesome!!
Isn't EU fines turnover, which is revenue plus cost?
The "brilliance" of Elon's plan: he is impervious to EU fines because he doesn't make any money.
He makes a lot ofmoney - he just loses more.
If that is gross revenue, I have bad news for the EU. "X" is, IIRC, operating in the red since Musk bought it.
It's revenue, not profit. "X, formerly Twitter" still gets paid by advertisers, even if the amount is much lower than it used to be.
Ah. Alright, fair enough, thanks for correcting my mistake.
Any phrase, request or threat in the from of "do X or be subject to the rules" is inherently flawed.
Why not skip the asking part and go straight to the enforcing the rules part because they're, you know; the fucking rules.
^ sue em n block em
Purging the images off social media will make it easier to deny that the atrocities ever happened. Keep them there in all their gory uglyness , perhaps put a spoiler tag over them to prevent someone with a feeble constitution from accidentally stumbling onto them and accidentally being triggered , but leave them there as evidence of the evil that happened.
It should be archived and put somewhere people can go and access it for historical and educational purposes, but that's it. It's horrible, and even knowing what's happening is ALREADY bad enough.
There are already people denying it ever happened , this why it is needed.
The better would have been to ban Twitter. People and politics have to understand you can't talk with irrational people.
Nationalize it.
Governments use twitter, a private, for-profit system, far too much for official communications. Governments should run their own communications systems that the public can interface with.
Poop emoji incoming
Or else what? Small fine? You'll never see him.
Did you even read the text post? 6% of revenue, because some places have reasonable laws that charge percentages of revenue.
I read it. I was asking a rhetorical question. 6% of X revenue is not 6% of elon revenue, fwiw. Impact is still limited.
They don't have the legal right to take money directly from Musk as nice as that would be.
Of course impact is going to be limited. The alternative being unlimited? I don't think Musk deserves most of his wealth, but for the penelty of something like this to be taking literally all of it away would be insane. It's always going to be limited. That's basically what laws do. They should be proportional.
The alternative? What alternative?
My only point here is this isn't going to have any major impact on his day to day operations regardless of how you try to spin my comments. Not sure why this is such an argument for you.
6% of revenue is apparently 300 million. IRC last year, twitter had 1.2 billion in interest payments, but only 1.1 billion in cash flow. Unless twitter has suddenly increased cash flow or repaid loans, a 300 million dollar fine may mean it's impossible for twitter to repay interest payments. It's potentially an existential threat and could tip twitter into bankrupcy.
It's not nothing and it's certainly better than nothing. And that 6%? That's just the tip of the shit berg.
For example, Germany NetzDG fines can be as high as 50 million euros... PER CASE. Tech Crunch:
Obviously Musk is a top tier genius with a full legal department, and I'm sure twitter clamped down on illegal hate speech in the past half year so that only 600 cases are reported to German authorities, but that 300 million may just be the trickle of shit before the pipe fully bursts.
In Musk's defense:
The alternative to them being limited is unlimited. There's no in between for those words. It's either limited or it isn't and is unlimited.
I get wanting more, but what percentage is "right" for you. There has to be a percent that's acceptable, and anyone can always say it isn't enough, unless it's unlimited which would be rediculous.
Mind... blown
Well, it's revenue not profit, so theoretically it could be money out of his pocket that the social media platform formerly known as Twitter perhaps wouldn't be able to pay by itself.
Freedom of speech must stand. If it's not true, counter it with more speech. Governments shoulder never have the power to block speech nor curate speech.
So what's slander?
Joke’s on Brussels - 6% of a negative number is not a disincentive.
Should be 6% of his personal net worth as most optimistically reported.
Revenue =/= profit
Revenue will never be negative.
I can think of an occasion... when the Beatles tried to open a clothing store which didn't do well, and when it went out of business, fans ended up stealing everything in the building down to the fixtures. Having to pay to renovate the building after the business has closed... that counts as negative revenue to me.
Well your counting wrong in that case, they operated at a loss judging from your story but their revenue was all the money that went through the company.
Then take their servers. Just chuck them in the back of a removalist van and pay some mexicans to drive it to your garage.
Umm... why? Why are they censoring the truth?
This is how people don't take war seriously. All they do is hear about it, but don't see the gruesome reality.
Oh, that must be really embarrassing, but...
Maybe work on your reading comprehension to make sure you don't embarrass yourself like that again.
What are you talking about?
I'm specifically referring to the videos and images.
Oh the ironing.
Child sex abuse is a reality we have to confront head-on, but we don't share images of it for awareness.
Likewise, you shouldn't be sharing images of the slaughtered bodies of civilians to draw awareness to terrorism.
Woah, child sex abuse isn't the same as war though. People already take it plenty seriously and nobody is glorifying it (out in the open.)
Your analogy isn't a 1:1 representation of the topic at hand. All it does is pivot from the actual topic to something that's easier for you to argue against.
I never said it was the same, it's called a comparison. We ban images of sex abuse because of the harm sharing those images does to victims. Hamas has gone through a lot of effort to film and disseminate what they did in Israel online, and they are doing so with the intent of doing harm to the victims' families. While there may not be laws in the USA prohibiting the sharing of this content, I would still argue that it is morally reprehensible given that you are participating in something intended to do harm.
What it's 'intended' to do doesn't really matter. If you notice, people aren't supporting Hamas. They see these videos and they're rallying behind them in support for Israel.
Wow. It's almost like, exactly how I said, showing people instead of telling them causes them to take war seriously.
Traumatizing ≠ making people take war seriously.
Believe it or not, journalism and educating people is much more than uploading graphically disturbing images to some website and leave it as is.
That's actually not true, and most people who watch these videos aren't 'traumatized', so it's not really an argument.
Who said it isn't? They should include the footage with their articles. This way people can see instead of just being told.
If they don't want to look, then there should be explicit content warnings.
There have been plenty of studies about gore and death content that suggest they cause trauma similar to PTSD. Some people are affected more than others. On X you're pretty likely to be presented with some extremely violent images right now if you go looking for information about what is happening, so you can't really avoid it other than to avoid X entirely. Plenty of these images and videos aren't even related to this conflict, and are just misinformation / ragebait.
Can you show me what studies you're talking about?
I have a feeling you're referring specifically to studies that focus on people who are paid to moderate this content. If you share what studies you're talking about we can know for sure.
You really don't need to look further than the clinical data on PTSD. A sufficient amount of any form of trauma can cause mental health issues including but not limited to PTSD. Watching an execution video has a large potential to cause a severe trauma response, especially if the victims are people you know or love, or are members of your community.
Plenty of real world examples of content moderation teams at social media companies suffering from their exposure to extreme content.
Traumatizing people is one of the core goals of terrorism, because it does damage.
Thanks for not linking to a single study like I asked.
Sorry, but I won't take you seriously until you do. You mentioned 'studies.' Show us them.
I've seen studies that disprove your studies.
That's irking to limiting press freedom if gruesome photos and videos are forbidden. That ain't good, EU!
Edit: for all the dumb fucks downvoting me... Where the fuck did I say anything about fake news and propaganda?
Anyone has an idea what turned the American people against the Vietnam war? Exactly. Horrible videos and photos. That's how the world learns about immoral horrors. And Nazi concentrationi camp photos in all the Nazi German newspapers early on would have changed the course of ww2. But there weren't any published photos...
2nd Edit: important context I missed: from https://feddit.nl/comment/3638132
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).
Absolute minus nipples.
Those offensive nubs just can not stop swearing.
A free press is hardly a US-centric idea.
It isn't and it's a good idea.
But somehow the US doesn't seem to be as good at having one as they might want to think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Press\_Freedom\_Index
It's not terrible in that index, but it's below most European countries.
Edit: or maybe you prefer an index by a US instituation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_of\_the\_Press\_(report) the ranking looks pretty similar, though.
Free speech and free press are vital to intellectual progress.
Information needs to be exchanged to grow.
They were referring to absolute free speech. Something that many people in the US believe to be a real thing.
I am not American. I am European. Thanks for playing. Try to read what someone actually wrote next time.
My favourite is "absolute free speech!!" combined with "if you say something someone doesn't like, they are entitled to punch you"
Or "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" lmao but then it's not [absolute] free speech
No, you don't understand, it's easy:
Easy, huh? /s
Anyone who says that is forgetting that punching falls under assault.
Hate speech is far beyond merely "something I don't like". It is advocating for the oppression and even eradication of people based on their very identity.
Hate speech should not be tolerated if we want to live in a society that tolerates the existence of others. (So called "paradox of tolerance" which is really not a paradox when you frame it as I have). We can tolerate the existence of bigoted assholes but prohibit them spreading their bigotry. Otherwise we live in a society that supports intolerance.
Exactly
Its freedom of speech from the government not carte blanche to say what you want.
Granted even that is still slightly restricted.
It baffles me that y'all are ok with being muzzled.
Straight talk time.
Those images should be posted and not removed.
People need to see what is happening for them to react.
Pictures and videos proved the holocaust to the world.
Pictures and videos got the us out of Vietnam
People need to see things that make them viscerally uncomfortable.
The only images the EU asked to have removed are images from unrelated conflicts and video games portrayed as geniune images of the current events, so blatant disinformation.
It's in the request made by the EU. The Politico article made up the part where all graphic images are to be removed.
Politico is engaged in blatant disinformation. How surprising. The actual text of the letter from the EU is online and it is very clear what they are demanding.
I kinda want to see if we can post enough screenshots from DayZ and Left 4 Dead, calling them photos from our neighborhood to get the AI media to report on a global zombie virus.
Ah
That is context I did not have and falls under fake news / propaganda. I have no problem seeing dumb false shit removed.
The images in question were photos and videos from previous conflicts or video games being passed off as photos and videos of the ongoing conflict.
This is not a free speech issue this is a prevention of misinformation.
No other institution can instill punishment for speech except the government, so freedom of speech from the government means freedom of speech absolute. Joe Blogs migh have a pop at me, but then he's guilty of assault. My employer might decide my views are not consistent with theirs, but unless I was acting as their representative at the time most decent worker protection laws across the globe would deem it as you acting as a private individual, and therefore none of your employer's concern.
Now, is it polite, civil and sociable to say certain things? No, but if I'm prepared to contravene social etiquette, I can say whatever I want under a system of protected speech from the government.
Thank you! I wrote my edit before I read any replies but that's exactly it 👍
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.
So...
You think it should be legal for any random person to stand outside your house with a megaphone telling everyone that you're a child abuser and the only way to protect the kids is to immediately kill you?
I believe the classic example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater
Yeah, but when explaining it to someone with zero empathy, they dont understand unless it's explicitly about them...
If "fire in a theater" would work on that person, it would have already. It's not some obscure example no one's ever heard of before...
Which ironically is actually legal in the US. The big lines are libel, slander, defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, fraud, threats and child pornography.
Assuming the person is not actually a child abuser, the example they used would actually cross the line in the US but really only for a civil case, rather than criminal. It wouldn't even count as incitement unless he was calling for the alleged child abuser to be lynched or something, even "someone ought to string up this child abuser" probably doesn't count as incitement.
No I don't personally believe in absolute free speech I was just trying to offer perspective in response to a comment that was rejecting the concept outright.
I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though.
That's so much sadder than if you were being authentically stupid....
What's sad is you being mean to a person for simply making a comment on a social media platform.
Wait...
I thought you just said you were trolling...
Now your serious and it was a legitimate question?
JK, I don't give a fuck, I'm not even sure why I didn't block you already.
What? I never said I was trolling. I said I was offering a different perspective.
It's so bizarre how people are attacking me for that. You would think I said something awful.
I did enjoy the reaction that my original comment got but only because the comment wasn't intended to stir up controversy or invoke a strong reaction but clearly has.
I was contributing to a conversation with a comment that I feel was quite harmless. I didn't know free speech absolutism was such a feather rustling topic.
Did you really just go from “I think history shows us that the alternative is worse” to this?
cringe
Enjoying people being unhappy with you is not a very good life outlook.
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.
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.
Indeed. Something the USA probably will never learn
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.
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.
The gruesome images part is only said by Politico. Read the original open letter. The EU is not complaining about the images hurting their sensibilities by being too gruesome, but that they are either from different conflicts or straight up from video games.
The EU is not offended by the gruesomeness of the images, but by the fact that they are lies. Politico is reporting inaccurately at best on this.
Yes, indeed, thank you. I edited my reply to update that fact.
"removing my propaganda is against my freedumb of speech!!!"
The EU isn't saying that violent photos are to be removed. The letter is asking for removal of disinformation and transparency into what gets removed.
Politico seems to have made up the part you're complaining about.
Yes, thanks, by now I've been informed of that. The idea was weird to begin with 👍
Talking about spreading misinformation and media containing violence.
Yeah, clickbait headlines :(
We don't have a 'free press'. We have a 'private press'. We have all the news they want to print. Musk, for example, has suppressed and banned, and blocked all over ex-twitter.
No I did not
Let me just say this... A real man (or woman) admits when they're wrong.
You did so. My upvote is going to do nothing for the ratio, but I saw you.
Additional evidence changed your opinion, and that you didn't replace your post - you added additional information that changed your mind
That's the standards I hold myself to, and for that you have my respect
🫡🖖
The US isn't the world.
I'm not talking about the US....? 🙄
Limiting (islamo-)fascist propaganda is good. Freedom of speech is a social contract. You only get to keep your freedom of speech if you don't use it to grossly infringe the rights of others.
"Islamo-fascist?" Is this 2002?
Have my upvote