MontyPython
Dorothy Mantooth is a saint!
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
- Messages
- 9,422
- Likes
- 13,265
The EU introduced new laws in August 2023 which regulate the kind of content that is allowed online.
The Digital Services Act requires so-called "very large online platforms" to proactively remove "illegal content", and show they have taken measures to do so if requested.
The EU told the BBC it was not currently in a position to comment on what would come next in these specific cases, but explained what was hypothetically possible under the law.
The DSA allows the EU to conduct interviews and inspections and, if it is unsatisfied, proceed to a formal investigation.
If it decides that a platform has not complied or is not addressing the problems it has identified, and risks harming users, the commission can take more drastic steps.
This can include a heavy fine, and as a last resort it can even request judges ban the platform from the EU temporarily.
In contrast, when Elon bought Twiiter, he swore to promote more free speech and allow Twitter to become a public square to freely debate issues. He's championed the concept that free speech cannot constitute illegal content, because it's just that: free speech.
Granted, the DSA only affects Europe for now, but the world can't have it both ways - unfiltered AND "approved" communication.
What's right / wrong / best / worst?
As Americans, our right to free speech has always been limited - whether we admit this or not. For example, you will be arrested if you yell "FIRE!!!" in a movie theater. But what about our "right" to post things online that are demonstratively false, hurtful or vulgar?
As we speak, Twitter X is banning accounts and removing posts concerning the Israel situation. But this goes way beyond just this one issue.
We even see Big Brother here on Volnation... editing / removing our posts and/or even banning members for posts deemed "inappropriate".
All of which begs the question...
How should our government handle our "digital public forums"?
The Digital Services Act requires so-called "very large online platforms" to proactively remove "illegal content", and show they have taken measures to do so if requested.
The EU told the BBC it was not currently in a position to comment on what would come next in these specific cases, but explained what was hypothetically possible under the law.
The DSA allows the EU to conduct interviews and inspections and, if it is unsatisfied, proceed to a formal investigation.
If it decides that a platform has not complied or is not addressing the problems it has identified, and risks harming users, the commission can take more drastic steps.
This can include a heavy fine, and as a last resort it can even request judges ban the platform from the EU temporarily.
In contrast, when Elon bought Twiiter, he swore to promote more free speech and allow Twitter to become a public square to freely debate issues. He's championed the concept that free speech cannot constitute illegal content, because it's just that: free speech.
Granted, the DSA only affects Europe for now, but the world can't have it both ways - unfiltered AND "approved" communication.
What's right / wrong / best / worst?
As Americans, our right to free speech has always been limited - whether we admit this or not. For example, you will be arrested if you yell "FIRE!!!" in a movie theater. But what about our "right" to post things online that are demonstratively false, hurtful or vulgar?
As we speak, Twitter X is banning accounts and removing posts concerning the Israel situation. But this goes way beyond just this one issue.
We even see Big Brother here on Volnation... editing / removing our posts and/or even banning members for posts deemed "inappropriate".
All of which begs the question...
How should our government handle our "digital public forums"?
Last edited:
