How many people get scammed every day on X because the verification badge is a "Spend $1-5" badge?
This was especially plain to see in the crypto side of twitter.
Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.
The average internet user is closer to your grandmother than you or me, and that is who these laws are meant to protect.
>Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.
So what's the right level of "responsibility"? Is letsencrypt issuing certificates to websites (which shows a lock icon in browsers) also fooling grandma into sending over her credit card details? What about EV certificates from a few years ago, where you paid ~$300/yr for a green lock? Should the EU get in the business of regulating what levels of verification are required to show lock/checkmark icons?
Not true.
Personal and family matters do not need an impress.
You might want to read Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (RStV), (§ 55 Abs. 1):
"Anbieter von Telemedien, die nicht ausschließlich persönlichen oder familiären Zwecken dienen, haben folgende Informationen leicht erkennbar, unmittelbar erreichbar und ständig verfügbar zu halten: Namen und Anschrift, bei juristischen Personen auch Namen und Anschrift des Vertretungsberechtigten."
Google translate:
"
Providers of telemedia services that are not exclusively for personal or family purposes must keep the following information easily recognizable, directly accessible and permanently available: name and address, and in the case of legal entities, also the name and address of the authorized representative.
"
To continue this train of thought, what happens when the EU decides that unverified users must be hidden by default and can only be accessed by direct lookup?
So as opposed to the old twitter method which was a vague “you know someone at twitter”, which led to random “journalists” and nobodies being verified. Paying money is just as arbitrary. Money at least means a credit card transaction happened.
An actual human employee at Twitter vouching for someone’s existence seems far more reputable than being able to purchase a Visa gift card in a convenience store.
Verification was “this account is who it says it is”. Not “this account has $10 to spare”.
Two of those, "transparency" and "open data access" are demands from those who would subsequently use that information and access to inform and enforce censorship.
> I'd like to know who is trying to steer the conversation, in light of psyop campaigns and hybrid warfare against our democracy.
What use is that information to governments, if not to guide their censorship efforts? It's a setup for labelling your opposition as "hybrid warfare" combatants, not because they picked up a gun but rather because they're saying things you think shouldn't be said.
The EU is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-Russian or anti-Israeli. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. This suggests a growing conviction within the EU that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?
Seems reasonable considering that Russia has absolutely no respect for European borders or laws. Why should they allow Russian assets to further damage Europe? They are literally waging war against Europe, and it's not just limited to Ukraine.
Russia has staged assassinations on European soil using radioactive and chemical weapons. They've sabotaged civilian and military infrastructure (both digitally and physically), plotted to bomb civilian cargo flights, etc. How much farther should Russia and it's agents be allowed to go before they're considered security risks?
The XX is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-XX or anti-XX. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Some of them are called "stupid" or "pigs". This suggests a growing conviction within the XX that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?
Logic! If the described properties define totalitarianism, then they do so for any value that can truthfully be substituted for XX. I suggest checking this for all ~195 possible values.
The size of the list is irrelevant. What matters is the precedent. Restricting banking or travel based on political assessments, without criminal conviction or transparent judicial review, is a serious breach of the rule of law. Simply asserting “good reasons” is not an argument.
Labeling everyone on a sanctions list as a “criminal” or “terrorist” dodges the core issue, which is the erosion of due process. EU sanctions are administrative measures, not criminal convictions: people are listed by executive decision, often on the basis of political and security assessments, without indictment, trial, or a judgment by an independent court. That means being sanctioned does not logically equal “proven criminal”; it means the person has been designated by a political body that, by design, operates outside the safeguards of criminal procedure
The EU is hypocritical, and the restrictions on freedom you see in Russia are actually way less extreme versions of the exact same laws in the books in Europe. Europe did it first and Russia is way more reasonable about it.
I swear you’re not even very far from repeating a Steve Rosenberg Vladimir Putin exchange verbatim.
It would be kind of hilarious how gullible the tech libertarian bro demographic is to Russian propaganda if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous.
So instead of exchanging arguments, you prefer to put people on sanctions lists, because they are on the wrong side from your standpoint? Is this the Europe you want to live in?
Confirmed.
I find article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights particularly enlightening:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. [...]
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
To me it reads as "you have the right to free speech without interference by public authorities, except in all cases where public authorities want to interfere in whatever form and for whatever reason".
Belgians are allowed to criticize the monarchy and the only protections the king has are the same defamation protections that every citizen has.
As far as being disallowed from denying the holocaust, there are very obvious good reasons for that law in Germany. I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing without looking pro-fascist.
Remember the tolerance paradox. Tolerating intolerance is not something that promotes personal liberty and freedom.
If Congress had a spine they would make it illegal for American corporations to collaborate with foreign countries in restricting any speech which would be legal in America. And if the EU had a spine, the would blanket ban all American social media. We're in this situation now because both sides are pussyfooting around the source of conflict, fundamentally incompatible values, never seeking resolution because it's easier to just continue with the status quo and ignore the resulting tensions. No respect for either side.
They are not pussyfooting, if governments did what you say everything would be illegal and all borders closed, war soon to follow. Collaborating with foreign countries is what it means to find resolution to issues.
You make unsupported claims of censorship, but how exactly is a fine against misleading blue dot censorship since it contains no speech? The company could change how they describe the blue dot or attach disclaimers but they don't.
Why? Because the EU's actions serve Musk's and the Administrations political goals of vilifying anyone who has a different view, especially the EU, and using the levers of the state to retaliate and threaten.
> The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech.
If it wasn't for ASML there would be no tech industry. The world depends on a single EU company for advanced chips and for its continued prosperity.
> Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves.
You're just another EU hater pushing mindless tropes. Why are you so full of hate?
Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again!
> It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College.
But the US President doesn't have a monopoly on setting the agenda of Congress, the Commission does with respect to the EU Parliament. Anyone with any political awareness knows that if you set the agenda you control the outcome.
> Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again!
It's not a fact. It's just pedantry that is conveniently not applied anywhere else. Nobody would say the US president isn't elected or ministers aren't elected, but when it comes to the EU a double standard is applied by dishonest ideologues.
The rest of your post is classic moving of goal posts, but fwiw Congress has been absolutely irrelevant since the sitting president decided to rule by decree.
No, it's more like an ambassador that's appointed by the president, you see we have presidential tickets and you get the two people you vote for, which is different from voting for someone then having the person you vote for decide who to appoint.
Yes technically the us 'electors' could vote for a different presidential ticket, but that's never happened in practice and even then their options are generally limited by who ran, electors can't pick just anyone.
Technically there is a level of indirection even in the presidency, but sure.
Nobody ever complains about ambassadors not being democratic though. Same thing goes for, idk, a Secretary of State or whatever, they all go through the same process.
Only when it comes to EU institutions people can't hide their hatred and can't help themselves but make the same old dishonest claim.
So there's even so bigger differences because an ambassadors are appointed and can be easily removed, also us ambassadors don't all huddle together, elect leaders between them then get busy making regulations that impact their original constituints, it might be closer to say federal chairmen, once appointed extremely hard to rescind and then are given real powers.
The federal reserve isn't known as especially democratic.
Only people being dishonest are those who ignore massive speech restrictions in europe. Look up cj Hopkins. I could go on and on and on. Sadly my comment likely to never even be seen because of how aggressive hn is whenever there's any intelligent push back to the progressive/liberal agenda.
Edit.
If your takeaway aftertwo minute search on cj hopkins is lol Nazis are bad, then you have much more profound problems with research and basic understanding of reality then I can assist you with. Try going through the actual court documents and primary sources for once in your life instead of just letting whichever source of truth you trust to propagandize you.
Yikes, I just did. Trivializing the holocaust in Germany of all places is not a good look.
Edit: This is exclusively based on the primary source - a book cover where the guy was using a swastika (!!!) to critise a policy he didn't like - i.e. made light of the holocaust. If you don't understand why that's completely unacceptable, I don't know what to tell you.
How many people get scammed every day on X because the verification badge is a "Spend $1-5" badge?
This was especially plain to see in the crypto side of twitter.
Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.
The average internet user is closer to your grandmother than you or me, and that is who these laws are meant to protect.
>Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.
So what's the right level of "responsibility"? Is letsencrypt issuing certificates to websites (which shows a lock icon in browsers) also fooling grandma into sending over her credit card details? What about EV certificates from a few years ago, where you paid ~$300/yr for a green lock? Should the EU get in the business of regulating what levels of verification are required to show lock/checkmark icons?
It will end like Germany where to put anything on the Internet your physical address must be visible.
This is what they've been pushing for with app stores.
Not true. Personal and family matters do not need an impress.
You might want to read Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (RStV), (§ 55 Abs. 1): "Anbieter von Telemedien, die nicht ausschließlich persönlichen oder familiären Zwecken dienen, haben folgende Informationen leicht erkennbar, unmittelbar erreichbar und ständig verfügbar zu halten: Namen und Anschrift, bei juristischen Personen auch Namen und Anschrift des Vertretungsberechtigten."
Google translate: " Providers of telemedia services that are not exclusively for personal or family purposes must keep the following information easily recognizable, directly accessible and permanently available: name and address, and in the case of legal entities, also the name and address of the authorized representative. "
> Personal and family matters do not need an impress.
Does advocating for one political position or another count as a personal or family matter?
To continue this train of thought, what happens when the EU decides that unverified users must be hidden by default and can only be accessed by direct lookup?
So as opposed to the old twitter method which was a vague “you know someone at twitter”, which led to random “journalists” and nobodies being verified. Paying money is just as arbitrary. Money at least means a credit card transaction happened.
An actual human employee at Twitter vouching for someone’s existence seems far more reputable than being able to purchase a Visa gift card in a convenience store.
Verification was “this account is who it says it is”. Not “this account has $10 to spare”.
Regulate the algorithm. Make it boring.
The algorithm is open source and on GitHub. It is pretty boring.
No it is not open source and on GitHub. I think it is fair to call that repo fake. It is not even runnable code.
Also who cares what they publish. They would have to prove they run the same code. Otherwise it can be just gen AI coded whatever.
They have proved that they do not on several occasions.
That's a very outdated algorithm, which is why X was willing to open source it.
So campaign for an update.
And you believe that?
tl;dr
The three reasons for the fine are:
* Lack of transparency / misleading verified checkmarks
* Lack of open data access
* Lack of any ad transparency showing who paid to show which ads
None of those are censorship. All of those are basic good governance and transparency.
The censorship angle is nothing but FUD by an admin terrified of good governance and transparency.
Two of those, "transparency" and "open data access" are demands from those who would subsequently use that information and access to inform and enforce censorship.
Based on what information?
That sounds like quite the claim, do you have any evidence to support it?
Personally, I'd like to know who is trying to steer the conversation, in light of psyop campaigns and hybrid warfare against our democracy.
I'd also like researchers to be able to examine how a large public forum is run.
Again, transparency is the name of the game.
> I'd like to know who is trying to steer the conversation, in light of psyop campaigns and hybrid warfare against our democracy.
What use is that information to governments, if not to guide their censorship efforts? It's a setup for labelling your opposition as "hybrid warfare" combatants, not because they picked up a gun but rather because they're saying things you think shouldn't be said.
The information isn't made available to governments, it's made available to the people.
What X is scared of is showing that @AlabamaMAGALady and @DeutscherPatriot are based in St. Petersburg.
Again, there is no censorship. Just a transparency requirement.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46325926
This you?
Denial of free speech? In which way? And it's incomprehensible that you would bring random Ukraine bashing into your argument out of the blue.
In what way has X/Twitter been innovative lately? I suppose renaming to X might count?
> US State Dept has just announced Visa restrictions on all those EU officials involved
So... what?
Visa restrictions can go both ways with US billionaires and politicians getting denied.
Who's gonna back down?
The EU is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-Russian or anti-Israeli. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. This suggests a growing conviction within the EU that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?
Seems reasonable considering that Russia has absolutely no respect for European borders or laws. Why should they allow Russian assets to further damage Europe? They are literally waging war against Europe, and it's not just limited to Ukraine.
Russia has staged assassinations on European soil using radioactive and chemical weapons. They've sabotaged civilian and military infrastructure (both digitally and physically), plotted to bomb civilian cargo flights, etc. How much farther should Russia and it's agents be allowed to go before they're considered security risks?
The XX is acting in an increasingly restrictive manner, sanctioning journalists and citizens deemed pro-XX or anti-XX. Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel. Some of them are called "stupid" or "pigs". This suggests a growing conviction within the XX that certain viewpoints are acceptable, while others are effectively prohibited and carry tangible consequences. How should this trend be described? Is it a form of totalitarianism, or something else?
Try to find matches for the XX placeholders!
This is a perfect place for a prolog program.
And what exactly did you add to the discussion, beyond posturing
Logic! If the described properties define totalitarianism, then they do so for any value that can truthfully be substituted for XX. I suggest checking this for all ~195 possible values.
And what exactly did you add to the discussion, beyond posturing
It's not perfect, but by all means it's better than the so called free speech of the US-Maga cult
> Some of those targeted are reportedly unable to open bank accounts or travel.
Yeah sure """journalists""", the list of individuals under sanction in the EU is small and usually there's a good reason they are in that list.
The size of the list is irrelevant. What matters is the precedent. Restricting banking or travel based on political assessments, without criminal conviction or transparent judicial review, is a serious breach of the rule of law. Simply asserting “good reasons” is not an argument.
All the people in this list are criminals of various kind, money laundrers and some of them even terrorists.
You should ask yourself the opposite, why people supporting Russian views in the EU often are from a criminal background?
Labeling everyone on a sanctions list as a “criminal” or “terrorist” dodges the core issue, which is the erosion of due process. EU sanctions are administrative measures, not criminal convictions: people are listed by executive decision, often on the basis of political and security assessments, without indictment, trial, or a judgment by an independent court. That means being sanctioned does not logically equal “proven criminal”; it means the person has been designated by a political body that, by design, operates outside the safeguards of criminal procedure
Fine, the day it affects real people, I'll also push for a change. I doubt it will ever be though.
For now excuse me but I won't cry for the poor money laundrers of the Russian mafia and their yachts.
This list is public as well, feel free to consult it.
May I introduce you to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/25/tourists-for...
Why don’t you go ahead and finish your argument?
The EU is hypocritical, and the restrictions on freedom you see in Russia are actually way less extreme versions of the exact same laws in the books in Europe. Europe did it first and Russia is way more reasonable about it.
I swear you’re not even very far from repeating a Steve Rosenberg Vladimir Putin exchange verbatim.
It would be kind of hilarious how gullible the tech libertarian bro demographic is to Russian propaganda if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous.
So instead of exchanging arguments, you prefer to put people on sanctions lists, because they are on the wrong side from your standpoint? Is this the Europe you want to live in?
It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited.
For example, in many countries it's illegal to say that WWII concentration camps didn't exist.
In Belgium, a media can't make a publication that mocks the King.
Confirmed. I find article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights particularly enlightening:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. [...]
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
To me it reads as "you have the right to free speech without interference by public authorities, except in all cases where public authorities want to interfere in whatever form and for whatever reason".
Which is the same for every country with declared "freedom of expression", even the US.
Next time you make an argument like this you might want to try to make one that isn’t easily debunked by a quick google search:
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jai...
Belgians are allowed to criticize the monarchy and the only protections the king has are the same defamation protections that every citizen has.
As far as being disallowed from denying the holocaust, there are very obvious good reasons for that law in Germany. I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing without looking pro-fascist.
Remember the tolerance paradox. Tolerating intolerance is not something that promotes personal liberty and freedom.
I left Europe decades ago and now I stand corrected, the law's been repealed in 2023 based on judgment from 2021.
> I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing
I'm not here for that, I was just stating facts. Each country/culture/civilization has their own characterization of good and bad.
Some goes as far as saying that tolerance for everything is "good" and that if you don't tolerate everything you're "bad".
If Congress had a spine they would make it illegal for American corporations to collaborate with foreign countries in restricting any speech which would be legal in America. And if the EU had a spine, the would blanket ban all American social media. We're in this situation now because both sides are pussyfooting around the source of conflict, fundamentally incompatible values, never seeking resolution because it's easier to just continue with the status quo and ignore the resulting tensions. No respect for either side.
They are not pussyfooting, if governments did what you say everything would be illegal and all borders closed, war soon to follow. Collaborating with foreign countries is what it means to find resolution to issues.
The tweet:
TheRealElonMusk... (Verified) 4h tweeted
"I am a nazi"
The profile:
TheRealElonMuskLol398 - (Verified Parody)
This account is a parody. Disclaimer.
Verification has never meant you’re a good person on any platform
Isn’t the problem that they verified “the real Elon Musk”?
Of course it is.
Prior checkmarks were for anyone who could pay 15K USD. X simply made it cheaper.
There is also a bizarre fine against Elon personally.
The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech.
Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves.
Sure. Don't inform yourself. Live in your own little biased world. It's cozy, isn't it. But not real
It's true, all those people that disagree with what you have been told are Russian bots.
You can sleep soundly again.
EU laws are made by elected representatives.
You make unsupported claims of censorship, but how exactly is a fine against misleading blue dot censorship since it contains no speech? The company could change how they describe the blue dot or attach disclaimers but they don't.
Why? Because the EU's actions serve Musk's and the Administrations political goals of vilifying anyone who has a different view, especially the EU, and using the levers of the state to retaliate and threaten.
> The EU makes more money from fining American tech companies than it makes from EU tech.
If it wasn't for ASML there would be no tech industry. The world depends on a single EU company for advanced chips and for its continued prosperity.
> Don’t let unelected bureaucrats convince you that this is anything more than a revenue raising exercise for themselves.
You're just another EU hater pushing mindless tropes. Why are you so full of hate?
> EU laws are made by elected representatives.
No, they are voted on by elected representatives.
They must be proposed by the commission, which is not elected but appointed.
Ugh not this misdirection again.
The commission is appointed by directly elected governments. It's the same as any ministerial post in any government.
It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College.
> Ugh not this misdirection again.
Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again!
> It's also the same level of indirection as the US presidency, which is appointed by the Electoral College.
But the US President doesn't have a monopoly on setting the agenda of Congress, the Commission does with respect to the EU Parliament. Anyone with any political awareness knows that if you set the agenda you control the outcome.
> Oh no! Someone pointed out an inconvenient fact again!
It's not a fact. It's just pedantry that is conveniently not applied anywhere else. Nobody would say the US president isn't elected or ministers aren't elected, but when it comes to the EU a double standard is applied by dishonest ideologues.
The rest of your post is classic moving of goal posts, but fwiw Congress has been absolutely irrelevant since the sitting president decided to rule by decree.
> It's not a fact. It's just pedantry
Absolute gold, thanks for that.
> The rest of your post is classic moving of goal posts.
At least you lot have a wicked sense of irony.
No, it's more like an ambassador that's appointed by the president, you see we have presidential tickets and you get the two people you vote for, which is different from voting for someone then having the person you vote for decide who to appoint.
Yes technically the us 'electors' could vote for a different presidential ticket, but that's never happened in practice and even then their options are generally limited by who ran, electors can't pick just anyone.
Technically there is a level of indirection even in the presidency, but sure.
Nobody ever complains about ambassadors not being democratic though. Same thing goes for, idk, a Secretary of State or whatever, they all go through the same process.
Only when it comes to EU institutions people can't hide their hatred and can't help themselves but make the same old dishonest claim.
So there's even so bigger differences because an ambassadors are appointed and can be easily removed, also us ambassadors don't all huddle together, elect leaders between them then get busy making regulations that impact their original constituints, it might be closer to say federal chairmen, once appointed extremely hard to rescind and then are given real powers.
The federal reserve isn't known as especially democratic.
Only people being dishonest are those who ignore massive speech restrictions in europe. Look up cj Hopkins. I could go on and on and on. Sadly my comment likely to never even be seen because of how aggressive hn is whenever there's any intelligent push back to the progressive/liberal agenda.
Edit. If your takeaway aftertwo minute search on cj hopkins is lol Nazis are bad, then you have much more profound problems with research and basic understanding of reality then I can assist you with. Try going through the actual court documents and primary sources for once in your life instead of just letting whichever source of truth you trust to propagandize you.
> Look up cj Hopkins
Yikes, I just did. Trivializing the holocaust in Germany of all places is not a good look.
Edit: This is exclusively based on the primary source - a book cover where the guy was using a swastika (!!!) to critise a policy he didn't like - i.e. made light of the holocaust. If you don't understand why that's completely unacceptable, I don't know what to tell you.
[dead]