this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
425 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59554 readers
3011 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
425
Brazil just banned X. Could other countries follow suit? (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 months ago by True@lemy.lol to c/technology@lemmy.world
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alphacyberranger@sh.itjust.works 43 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm genuinely surprised why the UK haven't already

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 37 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Under what law?

UK currently holds the people that post things liable for their own words. X, the platform, just relays what is said. Same as Lemmy. Same as Mastodon.

If you ban X I don't see why those other platforms wouldn't be next.

Now should people/organisations/companies leave X? Absolutely! Evacuate like it's a house of fire. Should it be shut down by legal means? No.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 52 points 2 months ago (3 children)

An argument being made in another social media case (involving TikTok) is that algorithmic feeds of other users' content are effectively new content, created by the platform. So if Twitter does anything other than a chronological sorting, it could be considered to be making its own, deliberately-produced content, since they're now in control of what you see and when you see it. Depending on how the TikTok argument gets interpreted in the courts, it could possibly affect how Twitter can operate in the future.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 16 points 2 months ago

It's certainly arguable that the algorithm constitutes an editorial process and so that opens them up to libel laws and to liability.

Fair point.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Let’s say this goes through, how is a company going to prove it is not using an “algorithmic feed” unless they open source their code and/or provide some public interface to test and validate feed content?

Plus, even without an “algorithmic feed”, couldn’t some third party using bots control a simple chronological or upvote/like-based feed? And then those third parties, via contracts and agreements, would manipulate the content rather than the social media owner itself.

[–] Toribor@corndog.social 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

unless they open source their code and/or provide some public interface to test and validate feed content

This honestly seems like a good idea. I think one of the ways to mitigate the harm of algorithmically driven content feeds is openness and transparency.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well for the end users and any regulators it’s a great idea. But the companies aren’t going to go along with this.

[–] tarsisurdi 2 points 2 months ago

Then they must be held liable for what they allow to spread on their platforms

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

Twitter (or rather musk) chooses what it "relays" or boosts. Unlike lemmy, unlike Mastodon.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 months ago

The Australian Government issued a bunch of take down notices to Twitter and Musk said no

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/what-can-the-government-do-about-x/103752600

Musk decided to block them in Australian only which didn't satisfy the Australian Government

He took them to court and the court sided with Twitter, (x)

https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/australian-court-elon-musk-x-freedom-of-speech-row-1236000561/

The complexity and contradictions were illustrated by Tim Begbie, the lawyer representing the eSafety Commissioner in court. He said that in other cases X had chosen of its own accord to remove content, but that it resisted the order from the Australian government.

“X says [..] global removal is reasonable when X does it because X wants to do it, but it becomes unreasonable when it is told to do it by the laws of Australia,” Begbie told the court.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Here's the thing about nation state governments. They can pass laws. It's kind of the main thing they do.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

They retain authority by having some air of legitimacy. They can't just change laws, there has to be a due process just changing laws without a process is literally a dictatorship.

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

I agree. It would set a terrible precedent, even if it’s terribly tempting. I’d say it’s better to ask people to leave instead.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

I'm sure they would like to but they don't really have the authority.