zlacker

>>vikave+(OP)
One of the charges is "fraudulent data extraction by an organised group." That's going to affect the entire social media industry if applied broadly.

>>Animat+3E3
Frankly it sounds to me like a "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" kind of operation. France and the UK, and judging by yesterday's speech by the PM of Spain maybe the whole EU might be looking to do what China and Russia did earlier on and start cracking down on foreign social media by making it impossible to operate without total alignment with their vision and not just their (new) rules. Together with a push for local alternatives, that currently don't seem to be there, it may spell the end for a big chunk of the Global social network landscape.

I still believe that the EU and aligned countries would rather have America to agree to much tighter speech controls, digital ID, ToS-based speech codes as apparently US Democrats partly or totally agree to. But if they have workable alternatives they will deal with them from a different position.

>>muyuu+vH3
Yes, if you don't follow EU laws prepare to not do business in Europe. Likewise, if you don't follow US laws I'd advise against trying to do business in USA.

>>yxhuvu+aP3
If X/Twitter was to be banned in the EU, and some of its citizens still wanted to access X/Twitter, let us say for the sake of getting alternative points of view on politics and news, would it be a good or a bad thing if accessing X/Twitter by IP was stopped?

As in, a citizen of an EU country types x.com/CNN, because he or she wants to know the other side of some political issue between the EU and the USA, and he or she feels that the news in the EU might be biased or have misunderstood something. Would it be good or bad if the user was met with a "This website is by law not available within the EU"?

>>whatis+344
I’m reminded of Lord Haw-Haw, an English-speaking Nazi propagandist during WW2 that garnered quite a bit of attention for his radio broadcasts.

There’s an interesting tidbit that he gained quite a few listeners when he started releasing casualty information that the British government withheld to try to keep wartime-morale high.

Lord Haw-Haw then tried to leverage that audience into a force of Nazi sympathy and a general mood of defeatism.

Anyway, fun anecdote. Enemy propaganda during wartime (or increased tensions) is harmless until it isn’t.

>>datsci+R45
I would have thought that the Great Firewall of China would be a more obvious thing to be reminded of. Especially since there is no world war currently, yet, at least, and communication might help stop one.

Also, Godwin's law, strangely.

>>whatis+db6
Once there’s a fascist regime with ambitions of world domination that documents their horrors more thoroughly (and has their enemies document their horrors more thoroughly) than the Nazis then we can start referencing that regime instead.

Conveniently, at least in the US, WW2 is old enough to be “history” rather than “politics”, compared to Korea and Vietnam. Or, at least that’s the excuse I was given in AP US History when the curriculum suddenly ended at 1950. So WW2 will continue to be the most well-documented topic that we’re all educated enough about to collectively reference.

Trust me, I’d much rather speak plainly about the horrors of the atrocities that the US committed in the 20th century American but we’re not there yet because the people who grew up in the nation while it committed those atrocities still run the government and basically the nation in general.

Edit: also if it wasn’t obvious I was comparing Musk to Haw Haw. I don’t know if there is an equivalent for China