EU absolutely is a country.

  • Antaeus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Danish person here.

    Yes. Ban Google, Meta, X and all the rest. Let’s use a bit of EU funds to fund a privacy respecting social media that is NOT controlled by the US or China.

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Not really. I think the whole internet should be accessible to everyone.

    Do I think Americans are often obnoxious online? Yes.

    Do I know for a fact their big tech corporations are equally as evil as the Chinese ones, no matter how much their propaganda tries to convince me China is worse? Definitely.

    Is Xwitter a blight on society that only got worse since an out-and-out fascist bought it? Of course it is.

    But closing ourselves off from the world is not the solution.

    What I would support would be stricter regulations on data collection and algorithmic manipulation, because those things are bad no matter who is doing it.

    I would support heavier tariffs on foreign big tech, because if they’re going to use our people as a resource, they should at least pay up so we can put that money towards taking care of our own.

    And I would support a government program to incentivise home-grown technological solutions, because digital sovereingty is a concern, and the only solution is having our own shit.

  • DeLacue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I am a big proponent of free speech and the merits of free access to information.

    Or at least I was. I’ve always known that bad actors with control over your information input can do an awful lot of damage. I used to think free and open access was the best choice. But seeing how a few companies captured the entire social media environment and have swollen to near-total monopolies and then how those same companies have shown themselves to be bad actors with malicious intent I have changed my opinion. Banning them would help slow down the flow of info sewage into the EU and encourage more competing companies to form. We need that since the EU can’t break up American companies. So if new companies were ever to be competitive we need to remove the giants from the pool and commit to breaking up any that get too big.

  • Ozzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I’m definitely on board with ban of popular social media (from any country) that tracks me and collects my data even when I’m in toilet, let alone my search history on a day to day basis and sells it to others to generate it’s revenue and shoves its own agenda as the result on my feed. I want something like 4chan but a little more mature in terms of audience and no modspreading like on Reddit.

    Basically, Lemmy is good. Nice middle ground. Reddit like approach to content that I wanna view with other like-minded people whilst not being pushed off from the dinner table just because I wanna eat something else. Besides Reddit and fediverse, not many platforms allow that unless you completely start over with your algorithm.

    I wanna be able to see and be part of whatever I chose to ignore after I feel like eating that said food tomorrow, or the week after or the next year. If any social platform provides that, to the entire world, then they should be supported no matter what. Sadly platforms like Lemmy are not that popular even though they offer almost exactly what I just asked for.

  • Comalnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    I probably still wouldnt support banning any specific social media, or social media from a specific country. What needs to happen is some fucking regulation for algorithms, moderation, hate speech and misinformation. And then you can ban any social media that doesnt comply

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    For-profit social media, certainly. I don’t trust it anymore. Astroturfing, data-harvesting, I feel like they’re all made to fuck us over in some way.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have fucked up public discourse. They reward rage-bait content, they’re addictive by design, encourage tribalism, and they use an opaque algorithm to promote/demote posts. They silently censor ideas and content. Meta censors news in Canada.

    Zuckerberg and Musk appear to have political aims they are using their platforms to promote.

    Why would I want that? I get the slippery slope argument, but they are a slippery slope already.

    • CybranM@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      I wouldn’t lump in YT with those other two. YT definitely had problems but it has a lot of great content found no-where else

        • CybranM@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          Perhaps, but you could remove Twitter today and not lose anything of value. There are alternatives for the first two but not for YT

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Yeah. We hate our social media, and don’t trust our government. Everyone else should absolutely ban our social media, yesterday, if not sooner.

      Edit: And in response to lots of much more reasonable responses here, than mine: spot on!

      The real wisdom is to ban our (United States) shitty social media’s shitty behaviors, rather than playing platform bop-a-mole.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    Twitter is not a social media anymore, it is a propaganda platform. There are regulations for media in civilized places. Twitter does not respect the law, thus it shall be banned.

    If it were up to me it would be seized, because there is a public interest to this platform. Seizing it to make the algorithm transparent, fair and legal.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      I really hope the EU will ban it, but I’m afraid they will ask firmly for “some changes”, and claim victory over whatever “small change” is in reality. Their investigation took too long and the lead was replaced already. Then they will declare that “recent events and information were not taken in account” and go on for another N years of investigations.

      • biofaust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Sadly, the EU recently did exactly the opposite, by taking Twitter off the DMA VLOPs list for lack of a large business user base dependent on its services.

        Practically Musk cratered it in order to snap off of what he sees as shackles.

  • richardisaguy@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    i live in Brazil, and would be 100% down with X being banned, even Instagram or Facebook if necessary.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    I am actively avoiding US social media accounts, blocking US politics channels and stepping away from a number of US-based services altogether.

    If the government doesn’t do it, I’ll do as much of it as I can. Voting with your wallet is some US anarchocapitalist nonsense, but if my disgust removes incentives I’ll take it as a side benefit.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Voting with your wallet is some US anarchocapitalist nonsense

      I don’t understand what you mean.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Man, such an exhausting tangent to go on.

        Oversimplifying, “vote with your wallet” is a dereliction of duty of regulation, assuming that magical market forces will impose positive outcomes if we all just chip in on some sort of soft boycott.

        In practice, at scale, people can’t be expected to run a personal audit of all the money they spend or all the things they need. Money isn’t support. Support is support. Preventing market forces from doing garbage stuff is what regulations are for, not consumer spending choices.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        They mean it doesn’t work. “Vote with your wallet” is pushed heavily by billionaires. Almost like they have the biggest wallets…