100% of this European want X banned without further ado.
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
937 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
82261 readers
4928 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
~~Yesterday~~the moment the sink carrying cancer walked in.
Good.
I want it banned here too.
Ditch it.It will have 0 to none effect of EU. And Mr.NaciSalute won't get broke.Mastodon is the way.
I think you are mistaken. It will have a huge positive impact on the EU.
banning this website would be super good for Blue sky and mastodon
lol people will go to meta threads first, not that.
One step at a time...
i want it banned even if it doesnt
And ban Facebook too. It’s been breaking the law a lot longer!
Just imagine how funny it would be if people would just ditch all that shit.
Those are rookie numbers.
More than half are ok with any company breaking the law?
I imagine some of them are okay with fines, or strongly worded letters.
According to a new YouGov survey, a vast majority of respondents in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland (60-78%) think that the EU should take further action against X if it does not address breaches to European law brought forward by the Commission last year [1]. The majority of those (62%-73%) who wanted further action – and 47% of total participants – want X to be banned from the EU if it refuses to address these breaches [2]
20% being fine with it is still worrying to me.
Lmao, if only
If we obstinantly refuse to call it anything else, then it as twitter shall forever remain
I say that, in order to save the species, ban all social media, everywhere.
You might not realize it, but the Fediverse is social media so a ban would be rather detrimental to this place.
Damn near the entire internet is "social media" but people usually mean "social networking sites".
but lemmy :(
That's literally not possible.
I'm not talking about from a practical standpoint I'm talking about from a theoretical standpoint.
Given that social media being a form of media where humans socialize with each other is not something that can be banned because humans are intrinsically social creatures and modern technology facilities media based communication.
What we don't need is social media banned. We need regulation and enforcement and teeth for those regulations.
Almost all of the bad and negative parts of social media are results of companies driving profits and engagement at the cost of everything else, including the well-being of their users (Such as artificially, inflating, negativity and division because that drives more engagement).
Make the platform liable for the hate posted on them. They have algorithms manipulating what we see, those same algorithms send those messages to us for profit.
Hence the justification form holding them liable for content. Civil suits will destroy them in no time.
I don't like the idea of "banning" users from accessing a website. But I am certainly in favor of banning sovereign companies from doing business with the company that owns a website, and seizing any physical assets that the website company owns within the laws reach.
Please put an X on X!
I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned. What's different about X? The fact that Elon Musk runs it and he's in with a powerful dictator?
At some point you have to admit the CSAM is not the problem, it's the person running it, whether they have the power to stop you/fight back or not.
not just banned, but there would be criminal charges brought on the owners.
Musk should be prosecuted for distribution of CSAM.
Absolutely. And soliciting Epstein for sex with minors. Let's not forget about that. He was begging to get on the island and get some underage tail. It was pretty pathetic.
He should be held liable, but he won't be. Not by people who do the same thing.
What's different about X?
Well, you kind of said it yourself: The fact that, since it's sadly still one of the largest social outlets, there's a whole economy around it. If Europe banned X tomorrow, a lot of people and companies would take a non-negligible hit to their revenue. We can argue that probably these people are not a majority of the other half of people in Europe that don't want X gone, but in the end, politicians and lawmakers care about money and (in a very distant second place) what the majority of their constituents say.
I wonder how feasible it would be if they'd announce a deadline whereby it would be blocked and recommend people and business to move onto a federated alternative.
You and I both know people, politicians, journalists would just move to Threads before they move to the fedi or Bluesky or any FOSS alternative.
They want an algorithm.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Certainly not Lemmy Users. Lemmy users love that nazi shit with how much they repost it here.
Yes, it is unfortunately becoming increasingly clear that even in the EU, billionaires and their companies are above the law. The legal situation should be clear here and there should be consequences - but there apparently aren't any.
Unfortunately, this applies not only to Twitter, but to most US tech giants in particular, to meta, for example. I have already stopped counting the massive violations of the GDPR that meta and others are constantly committing, because nothing happens anyway. If anything, the fines are so low that violating the law brings these companies far more revenue than it costs them.
So unfortunately, the same major issue that brought the US to the brink of a straight up dictatorship also applies in Europe: even the most blatant violations of the law have no serious consequences for the richest of the rich – and that is why billionaires are becoming more and more powerful.
The situation may be better in the EU for now than in the US, whose legal system obviously no longer even maintains the appearance of fairness, but even in the EU, the enforcement of the law is miles away from anything that could even remotely be called justice.
The reason seems to me to be the same as in the US: concentration of power in a tiny billionaire class that asserts its influence through corruption.
I think that if things continue like this, and I see no indicators that they will not, it will not be long before even the appearance of justice is abandoned in the EU as well.
Edit: Here is an example of how this is possible - it's just plain old corruption, but in the highest ranks of our institutions: From Meta to the EU Parliament: Former chief lobbyist negotiates data protection (German article)
Aura Salla was Meta's chief lobbyist in Brussels for many years. Her task: to convince politicians to weaken EU digital rules such as data protection in order to generate even higher profits with Facebook, WhatsApp, and other platforms.
I wonder how the survey has been done?
Because if it has been done by phone, "do you want x to be banned if it continues to break the law?", then it's biased because X is historically used as a placeholder and only a ketamine addict could think that is a good idea to destroy a brand for that
I would like to know the percentage between if they break the law and regardless if they break the law
Weird to be that low for "continues to break the law."
They'll immediately ban "from the river to the sea" and prosecute everyone who says/displays it. but a multinational corporation is just allowed to break the law and maybe the politicians will at some point allowed them to face the law.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›