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.

  • crandlecan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -124
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    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.

    • rentar42
      link
      fedilink
      811 year ago

      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).

      • crandlecan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I am not American. I am European. Thanks for playing. Try to read what someone actually wrote next time.

      • @HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -28
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

        • Silejonu
          link
          fedilink
          241 year ago

          No, you don’t understand, it’s easy:

          • if the government punishes you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
          • if woke Twitter cancels you for what you said, it’s an attack on Free Speech™
          • if a far-right/Republican shoots you down for what you said, it’s just the consequences of your Free Speech™
          • if you’re writing a book about sexual education, it’s not Free Speech™ anymore, and you should be censored

          Easy, huh? /s

        • @agent_flounder@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          My favourite is “absolute free speech!!” combined with “if you say something someone doesn’t like, they are entitled to punch you”

          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.

        • NoIWontPickaName
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          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.

          • @maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 year ago

            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.

            • @markr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              71 year ago

              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.

            • @tburkhol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              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.

            • crandlecan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That is context I did not have and falls under fake news / propaganda. I have no problem seeing dumb false shit removed.

          • @Strykker@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            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.

          • crandlecan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Thank you! I wrote my edit before I read any replies but that’s exactly it 👍

          • @wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Its freedom of speech from the government not carte blanche to say what you want.

            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.

      • @stealthnerd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -301 year ago

        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.

        • @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          261 year ago

          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?

            • @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              81 year ago

              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…

            • Schadrach
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              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.

          • @stealthnerd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -81 year ago

            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.

                • @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though

                  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.

                  • @stealthnerd@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    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.

            • Flying SquidM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though.

              Enjoying people being unhappy with you is not a very good life outlook.

        • @maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          171 year ago

          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.

          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.

        • @zhl@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          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.

        • @DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          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.

        • Annoyed_🦀 A
          link
          English
          41 year ago

          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.

    • @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      251 year ago

      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.

      • @maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        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.

        • crandlecan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Yes, indeed, thank you. I edited my reply to update that fact.

      • krinkko
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        “removing my propaganda is against my freedumb of speech!!!”

    • @maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      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.

      • crandlecan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Yes, thanks, by now I’ve been informed of that. The idea was weird to begin with 👍

    • @markr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      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.

        • @theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          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

    • Hyperreality
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.