Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[SAY HER NAME]

The blue checkmark isn't unique to X, so the issue is that other companies still use and formerly Twitter used it to show authenticity, not a subscription feature. Users reasonably expect that this is common now. Elom chose to use it differently because it made his failing investment a bunch of money. He could have used a different checkmark to show subs, but he chose to go with this one, knowing full well that it would deceive people.

You've decided to defend the grifters and scum with an American flag. Which makes it extra funny.

Why do you think its reasonable for users to think that? The change was communicated in a very public manner; it continues to being communicated

They have a website where they define what it means:

https://help.x.com/en/managing-your-...ified-accounts

Its a premium subscription feature. Thats it.

And the issue is not authenticity, which again means that you yourself dont know why they decided to fine this.

Back in the day, BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information. Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the DSA. We also consider that X’s ads repository and conditions for data access by researchers are not in line with the DSA transparency requirements. X has now the right of defence — but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines and require significant changes.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres.../en/ip_24_3761

[Odinfrost]

Can I also point out that the article I originally posted mentions how Tiktok was also subjected to a breach of EU law, but settled the case, and was henceforth not fined as they adjust to comply with the law. Like... you know... You're supposed to.

This isn't a targeted attack against America or Twitter. This is Twitter being absolute dumbasses thinking they're above the law. And maybe they are in the US, but not over here.

[Edge-]

But in the same token I am free to point out what their ultimate goal is.

i'm unsure why you think anyone would believe that you, maga ned, know what the eu's ultimate goal is

[SAY HER NAME]

Are you seriously claiming that describing the specific feature that violates the general rule means that the general rule is "targeted"?

This is like claiming that murder laws exist only to target you, specifically, because the case details against you cite the specific details of the victim you murdered.

The law isn't about blue checkmarks. The law is about deceptive practices.

You can't possibly be serious. This is ridiculous, even for you, NED. You've managed to find a new low, somehow, when you were already scraping seabed.

Murder laws function on a criteria. The criteria being met is very strict and the standards applied to define what murder is are also defined v rigidly. And in cases where there is doubt there are multiple checks in which the question can be relitigated to get a proper answer.

What is the deceptive practice here? Why is the blue checkmark a deceptive practice?

The other two criteria are actually rigidly defined and I can buy as X being properly fined.

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.

Criteria: You don't have a searchable list where users can see the advertising.

This is rigidly defined.

I dont like your blue checkmark is vaguely defined. In the same token that you say its a deceptive practice I can say its not a deceptive practice as the change was communicated, its meaning has been changed and alternatives have been provided. The discretion is what I complain about. Even you havent provided a defense to why the check is a deceptive practice. Mayhem is the only user that has tried to do that.

[Mayhem]

Why do you think its reasonable for users to think that? The change was communicated in a very public manner; it continues to being communicated

They have a website where they define what it means:

https://help.x.com/en/managing-your-...ified-accounts

Its a premium subscription feature. Thats it.

Sure, that's why they didn't create a new checkmark; nope, they used the already established one instead, to make it obvious for the users, because that's how to make things obvious. And the meaning behind it is buried somewhere in the help pages. Well, now it's the user's fault for not reading about shit that was already known and changed by the company without making sure everyone knows about it. Yeah, that might work in the US, that doesn't work in the EU. We don't like companies deceiving customers. That's why VW and other companies were fined a couple of times by the EU.

And the issue is not authenticity, which again means that you yourself dont know why they decided to fine this.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres.../en/ip_24_3761

Meaning of authenticity in English

authenticity
noun [ U ]
uk /ˌɔː.θenˈtɪs.ə.ti/ us /ˌɑː.θenˈtɪs.ə.t̬i/

the quality of being real or true:

Oh, almost missed this bid because why read your links when I know I'm right? This is from your eu commission link:

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.

[alach]

Unlike trump, the EU doesn't make decisions on a whim or his feels, in fact many complain they take too long to decide on things like this.
Regardless, it will go through the proper legal channels, I'm sure.
Either way, Musk sure is acting like a giant, whiny, greedy, baby bitch over this. Someone needs a burping, me thinks.

[Endus]

Murder laws function on a criteria.

So do the EU laws in question.

You're lying when you claim they are not.

What is the deceptive practice here? Why is the blue checkmark a deceptive practice?

I've already linked the press release of the actual decision. If you can't follow a link and read it, I'm certainly not going to waste my and everyone else's time here paraphrasing it for you.

Stop asking questions that have already been answered just because you don't like the answer disproving your nonsense claims.

I dont like your blue checkmark is vaguely defined.

This is not a phrase anywhere in the case. It's bullshit you're making up. Your fantastical delusions are not reality NED.

Even you havent provided a defense to why the check is a deceptive practice. Mayhem is the only user that has tried to do that.

I linked directly to the press release explaining the decision. You're just lying or admitting you don't read people's posts before making shit up about what they did or did not say.

[Gorsameth]

Kinda wish the world lost access to twitter. It's such a cesspool. Moreso than anywhere else i've seen publicly on the internet. Sure there are forums full of people with those mindsets, but it's largely self contained. Twitter is now giving people a megaphone to be the worst versions of humanity that have ever existed.

I think we have gotten to the point where the world would actually become a better place if the internet disappeared over night.

[Rasulis]

This is simply Musk being Musk. In the greater scheme, this is a minor fine over some minor infractions. US Tech companies have run afoul of EU regulations and been fined many times. Google’s latest fine was $3.5B and Meta was $800M. None of them come running to Uncle Sam and asked for the EU to be dissolved. Instead, they quietly fought in court and negotiated the fines down or away completely.

Quick google search, Meta been fined six times. Largest fine was $1.2B in 2023. The internet lost count on how many times Google been fined by EU. Microsoft battle with EU regulators went all the way back to 1998.

[SAY HER NAME]

I mean its basically an infinite money glitch for Europe.

Instead of investing into innovative and productive endeavors you create regulations and then make 100% profit by fining the companies.

[Draco-Onis]

I mean its basically an infinite money glitch for Europe.

Instead of investing into innovative and productive endeavors you create regulations and then make 100% profit by fining the companies.

Do you have evidence of this? you have admitted that Twitter broke the law, how is it a glitch when the laws aren't secret? maybe just maybe they can I don't know follow the fucking law like every international company.

[Sezerek]

Instead of investing into innovative and productive endeavors

Are you by any chance referring to AI and crypto as "innovative and productive endeavors"?

[SAY HER NAME]

Do you have evidence of this? you have admitted that Twitter broke the law, how is it a glitch when the laws aren't secret? maybe just maybe they can I don't know follow the fucking law like every international company.

Its a joke you need to chill out.

[Edge-]

I mean its basically an infinite money glitch for Europe.

Instead of investing into innovative and productive endeavors you create regulations and then make 100% profit by fining the companies.

so we can add "infinite money glitch" to the long, long, long list of things you don't seem to understand.

[Endus]

I mean its basically an infinite money glitch for Europe.

Instead of investing into innovative and productive endeavors you create regulations and then make 100% profit by fining the companies.

The EU government issued a warning and allowed time for them to make changes to come into compliance. When Twitter refused to do so, that's when they fined them.

You come up with the weirdest-ass baseless conspiracy hogwash.

[Gorsameth]

Its a joke you need to chill out.

When your 'jokes' are not distinguishable from your ramblings they stop being jokes and just become more ramblings.

[SAY HER NAME]

When your 'jokes' are not distinguishable from your ramblings they stop being jokes and just become more ramblings.

Nah people here are obsessed with "dunking" on others and whatnot instead of understanding what the other person is saying. Endus is the biggest culprit of this

[Edge-]

Nah people here are obsessed with "dunking" on others and whatnot instead of understanding what the other person is saying. Endus is the biggest culprit of this

we understand what you're saying, and it's either wrong or we disagree.

[Endus]

Nah people here are obsessed with "dunking" on others and whatnot instead of understanding what the other person is saying. Endus is the biggest culprit of this

if you aren't here to be dunked on, maybe fact-check your own claims before posting them. Take some personal responsibility for your own terrible posting habits.

[callipygoustp]

First amendment! First amendment!

...am I right?



/s