this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
1067 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

82329 readers
3265 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 1 points 14 hours ago

So more than half said it should continue to be allowed if it kept breaking the law? That sounds so very made up. Plus how do you survey "Europe" exactly?

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Shouldn't they want it banned because it already broke the law? How many lines have to be crossed before anyone does anything?

Anarchism for the rich(law does not affect them), rugged police state for the poor,

[–] BigJohnnyHines@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

I’m not clicking the link to read this but these sort of headlines are often a result of their survey intentionally wording things like this to spin the narrative. Anyone who does in fact want it banned immediately would still say yes to the question. I’d suspect there are many such folks across Europe.

[–] projektilski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 days ago

I want it banned regardless :D

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 147 points 3 days ago (9 children)

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.

[–] fernandofig@reddthat.com 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] pycorax@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

not just banned, but there would be criminal charges brought on the owners.

Musk should be prosecuted for distribution of CSAM.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ban it, do it, we are not gonna cry!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

If X fails to respond to the Commission’s fine, 70% of respondents were supportive of repercussions [3]. Among those, between 17-28% think that further fines should be given to X, between 23-29% believe X should be banned, and the largest segment - between 40-52% of those in favour of repercussions - believe that the Commission should fine and ban the social media service entirely from the EU [4].

[–] DandomRude@piefed.social 59 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 19 points 2 days ago

i want it banned even if it doesnt

[–] Prikkeres@feddit.nl 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And ban Facebook too. It’s been breaking the law a lot longer!

[–] Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

So you suggest that people should see others in real life? Out and about? What are you, a savage?

[–] FatVegan@leminal.space 3 points 2 days ago

Just imagine how funny it would be if people would just ditch all that shit.

[–] lithiumground@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think all USA/Israel social media application must be banned.

[–] GameOverFlow@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

What is a Israel sozial media application?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

More than half are ok with any company breaking the law?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 2 days ago

I imagine some of them are okay with fines, or strongly worded letters.

[–] nao@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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]

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sveltecider@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago

I want it banned here too.

[–] gressen@lemmy.zip 32 points 3 days ago (4 children)

How about we just fine them to oblivion and make the people responsible answer for their crimes?

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 17 points 3 days ago

How about we start throwing executives into jail starting with the top and working the way down?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

banning this website would be super good for Blue sky and mastodon

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And why would not these be also banned shortly thereafter?

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

to be clear, I do not advocate the banning of any social media website for any reason

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Weird to be that low for "continues to break the law."

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] arch@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ditch it.It will have 0 to none effect of EU. And Mr.NaciSalute won't get broke.Mastodon is the way.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 7 points 2 days ago

I think you are mistaken. It will have a huge positive impact on the EU.

[–] Didntdoit71@feddit.online 14 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I say that, in order to save the species, ban all social media, everywhere.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'd rather not see a great firewall of Europe.

I'd be happy to see them banned from doing business here though. Hit them where it hurts, their money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago

I would like to know the percentage between if they break the law and regardless if they break the law

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 3 points 2 days ago

i wish this was worldwide

load more comments
view more: next ›