Observe wrote: ↑Sat, 5. Apr 25, 21:46The article mentions "illicit content and disinformation", but it doesn't go into details. What exactly is it that X has done wrong? Disinformation is a much over-used word these days, often meaning something that the government or institutions don't agree with. Personally, I would rather every nut-case theory or belief has an opportunity to express themselves - as long as they don't incite violence or blatantly advocate breaking the law.clakclak wrote: ↑Fri, 4. Apr 25, 01:21 EU set to fine Twitter up to 1 billion US Dollar for breaking disinformation law.
I would rather know about someone's hair-brained theory or belief, than have them plotting in the dark. Forewarned is forearmed. Personally, I think the EU needs to lighten-up, not clamp down. History never looks kindly on censorship.
This is based on the Commissions preliminary report. The initial investigation into X began December 18, 2023 and the preliminary findings were send to X in full detail on the 12th of July 2024. X is thus fully aware of the grievances of the EU.
Here is the summary given to the public:
One Janurary of this year, the EU requested further documentation from X to deepen the investigation. As for what happens next:EU commission wrote:First, X designs and operates its interface for the “verified accounts” with the “Blue checkmark” in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users. Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a “verified” status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the “verified account” to deceive users.
Second, X does not comply with the required transparency on advertising, as it does not provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository, but instead put in place design features and access barriers that make the repository unfit for its transparency purpose towards users. In particular, the design does not allow for the required supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.
Third, X fails to provide access to its public data to researchers in line with the conditions set out in the DSA. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service. In addition, X's process to grant eligible researchers access to its application programming interface (API) appears to dissuade researchers from carrying out their research projects or leave them with no other choice than to pay disproportionally high fees.
Source: https://www.techpolicy.press/understand ... against-x/techpolicy.press wrote:1. If a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) or Search Engine (VLOSE) is found in violation of the DSA, the European Commission would have to notify the company of the infringement (i.e., illegal content) and then provide a “reasonable period” for the company to remedy it. What constitutes a reasonable period is left undefined.
2. The noncompliant VLOP or VLOSE must then draw up an action plan for the Commission on how it will address its infringement. If the action plan is insufficient or poorly implemented, the company may face penalties, including fines of up to six percent of its total worldwide annual turnover or periodic penalty payments. The penalties must take into account whether a service systematically or recurrently failed to comply with its DSA obligations. These penalties can be appealed.
3. The Commission can also ask the Member State where the provider is mainly located to get involved. The national regulatory body would, again, ask the platform or search engine to come up with an action plan to address the infringement. If the platform does not cooperate within the time limits provided, the regulator can request its national judicial or administrative authorities to order an intermediary to act on the infringement.
4. As a last resort, noncompliance with a judicial or administrative order could result in a VLOP or VLOSE being temporarily suspended for up to four weeks. It is still, however, possible for a Member States’ Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) to “extend that period for further periods of the same lengths, subject to a maximum number of extensions set by that judicial authority.” These decisions can be appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
