not just banned, but there would be criminal charges brought on the owners.
Musk should be prosecuted for distribution of CSAM.
Comment on Nearly Half of Europeans Want X Banned if it Continues to Break the Law
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
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.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
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.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned.
On what legal grounds would that happen?
bold_atlas@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Confiscate every server uses as evidence.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
And how does that work legally?
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read (on sites like Ars Technica that cover technology) about dark web sites trading CSAM being shut down. By the FBI in America, by Interpol in the EU… I don’t know what legal grounds they use to do it.
You don’t think CSAM should be illegal? Or you genuinely don’t understand why it is, or what law it breaks?
fernandofig@reddthat.com 13 hours ago
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 13 hours ago
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.
psoul@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
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.
IratePirate@feddit.org 11 hours ago
Care to back up that claim? What exactly is Twitter’s contribution to their bottom line that they cannot live without?
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 hours ago
I mean, it’s obvious, the reach.
Big follower count = More Reach = More people likely to click the links or contact you
And that can be done elsewhere, but would require basically starting again from scratch, a big risk for a lot of corporations
IratePirate@feddit.org 9 hours ago
Tbh, I very much doubt that the bottom lines of, say, Dassault, BMW, Metro, or UBS would even budge if Twitter were to self-ignite over night, and their Twitter accounts with it. They’re (still) on this dumpster fire of a platform because “everybody is” and some bellend in marketing thinks it impossible not to do what all the others are doing. I’d argue no consumer cares what the Twitter account of Tesco’s has or hasn’t been posting this week, and it has zero effect on their purchasing decisions there.
“Self-employed creators”, aka influencers, aka people shilling products while pretending to be your friend, might be affected more because they lack any non-virtual connection to their “customers” But then again, we could ask ourselves if these provide any real-world value and should exist in the first place.
otter@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
They wouldn’t suddenly ban it though.
Any ban would roll in without enough time for people to switch away. Twitter doesn’t do anything special that can’t be replicated elsewhere.