Labour MPs have begun quitting X in alarm over the platform, with one saying Elon Musk had turned it into “a megaphone for foreign adversaries and far-right fringe groups”.
Over the weekend, newly elected MPs took to WhatsApp groups to raise growing concerns about the role X played in the spread of misinformation amid the far-right-led riots in parts of England and Northern Ireland.
Two Labour MPs are known to have told colleagues they were leaving the platform. One of them, Noah Law, has disabled his account. Other MPs who still use X have begun examining alternatives, including Threads, which is owned by Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and the open-source platform Bluesky.
In an article for the Guardian on Monday, a former Twitter executive, Bruce Daisley, said Musk should face personal sanctions and even an arrest warrant if he continues to stir up public disorder online.
No shit. The amount of far-right propaganda, hate and disinformation it’s pushing is so much that it’s pretty much over the line as an extremist site now, and I expect it to start getting flagged as that with a lot more organisations.
Musk wants to set the world on fire and X is his box of matches.
How powerful a tool X is depends on how much legitimacy it can gain. If politicians are leaving the platform it can’t be long before advertisers also leave. I’m old enough to remember Myspace. Even Facebook is a bit pacé nowadays.
- passé
Or is that a language I don’t know?
I think you mean Twitter
deleted by creator
Advertisers have been leaving since Musk bought it. He might have wooed some back but not on the same terms as before.
I think you mean Twitter.
Thank you for your service, Twitterenoclast 🫡
Of course, none of them are going to the fediverse, because social media that’s not owned by a corporate entity and ready for algorithmic enshittification is not a thing for normal people.
Tbf - once the fediverse gets big enough it’s kind of open season for misinformation spreading groups. They can just join another server once the one they used got blocked. Worst case they get onto a server that actually gets used by normal people and produce a lot of casualties by getting the server defederated.
I think it’s a nice concept but for this type of misinformation it’s really not the best thing…
It really depends how well maintained the instances are. This extra work may come at a cost. Which may exclude some of the opportunists.
If by “well maintained” you mean keeping a whitelist of instances, then yeah. But I doubt anyone is doing that because it’s actually counterproductive to the concept of fediverse. By keeping a whitelist you are creating an in group and an out group and instances can live or die based on that grouping.
As for why you’d need a whitelist, you can’t defend against a malicious attack if they keep spinning up new instances with bots designed to spread misinformation. The moment you ban once instance another one gets spun up. The only solution is a whitelist so all new instances are automatically blocked. Of course that works if all “normal” instances also have proper registration policies and can’t become attack vectors.
If the fediverse becomes wildly popular defending the instance can become a full-time job as the open nature gives more attack vectors. Also most instances are ran by volunteers so it’s probably not going to be a good time for anyone.
I’ve been saying this for a year now but no one cares to listen.
Federating with all instances by default only works if admins and mods of all instances are acting in good faith. Sooner or later that won’t be the case.
Do you think systems like fediseer would help with that? As I understand it’s a voucher based reputation system.
I could imagine Labour HQ running their own Lemmy server for their MPs and staff.
Would be interesting, but Lemmy and Mastodon would both need some work to tick some security and compliance checkboxes.
On the plus side, we could get proper 2FA support (i.e. Yubikeys or TOTP tokens) as a result. I’d love to get some more use out of that old yubikey.
I really wish Bluesky could federate with other Mastodon servers.
Also, fuck Threads.
No offense but you guys are on almost no-one’s radar. I only found out about the fediverse by googling reddit alternatives last year, and I WORK in IT.
Working in IT doesn’t mean you know everything about what’s on the internet.
(Source: I also work in IT. A toddler with a tablet knows more about a lot of things online than I do)
Don’t the french and german people use it? I swear I saw that post somewhere.
Took 'em long enough. Everybody should’ve ditched Twitter like a year ago.
Stopped using it the moment it became “X”. Realized a few weeks ago that I still had an account and that I hadn’t missed it once. Deleted the account and now happily live in a Twitter free bubble.
That place was toxic before musk got a hold of it. I can’t imagine how bad it is now.
Whenever I reminisce about Twitter I gotta remind myself that I’m probably gonna run into 90% of what’s going on there on IG anyway, two thirds of my explore page is just screenshots of tweets lol
I ditched it entirely the day they admitted that killing third party apps was a feature not a bug.
I used Tweetbot for ten years, so the idea of having to raw dog a fascist’s plaything didn’t appeal to me.
I wish own/governments/journalists started running their own mastodon instances.
For authentication more than anything else.
If I see kier.starmer@mastodon.gov.uk I’d know it was him. I see therealkierstarmer on twitter and it could be any joker with $8 to spare.
On the contrary they are starting to use Twitter to declare war and post about resigning as presidential candidate.
Who declared war via a social media platform? That sounds like horrible military strategy
Then make a package where it’s easy for them to roll out.
If a couple of furries can figure it out, I’m pretty sure a major Western government can do the same.
As should everyone. At a certain point you’re sticking around a place that literally promotes racism and hatred and pedophilia and actual nazis well it says things about you. And I’ve heard the arguments before about how convenient Twitter still is, about how it was just easier. I’ve heard those kind of arguments about hanging out with Nazis before. Came from Germans who pretended like they weren’t Nazis.
the news SHOULD be everyone is quitting twitter, and get rid of the scare quotes around hate and disinformation
Most public facing organsations quit it when they started requiring an account to be logged in to see tweets.
What’s the use of it as an official announcement platform if only logged in twitter users can see it?
I never created an account on xitter. I tried on Mastodon, and the tool was designated for people who love attention. The reason they are afraid to switch is losing their audience.
Maybe labeling them something embarrassing like Nazi sympathizers could help, but I even doubt that would do anything.
BTW: what do you call 9 Nazis and one non-nazi sitting together? 10 Nazis.
Meanwhile, Trump is going to DeSantis himself on Twitter tonight with an “uncensored” live conversation with Musk.
Oh my god, he DeSantised all over himself! That’s fucking disgusting. I haven’t DeSantised myself since the fourth grade. I mean, sure, I’ve Gulianied myself, but who hasn’t eaten too much Taco Bell and then Gulianied themselves on a regrettably hot day?
Oh boy, all them Jan 6 tweets right up there, it’s a great reminder!
Should never have started with Twitter. Not everything has to be on social media
LOL. Sure, not everything, but politicians do if they want to win elections.
Are you sure? I can only think of Donald Trump as an example, and even then I think he’s garnered more ridicule than support for it.
Obama famously used twitter in his first election campaign to create effect. In the brief moment when I had an account, he was my only follower
Ok zoomie
That government agencies are staying with them just makes them seem like jackasses that just care about the views by any means necessary. Anne Frank would be a nobody today, nothing but a banned account in today’s social networks, a lot of the intentional disinformation, narrative shaping, and hidden incontestable moderation these social networks are getting away that can completely lock away your work from any access except their own should be prosecutable and have legal recourse.
Yet they’ve been there for the last year and not noticed this, anyone with sense quit as soon he became owner.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Over the weekend…
Oh, you mean after the official UK Xitter account was banned because the Police Commissioner displayed zero understanding of their laws boundaries and managed to completely embarrass themselves and their national government by threatening extra-judicial extradition?
I don’t like Elon but fuck that noise. We fought a whole fucking war to not be subject to the UKs laws and I have yet to find an expiration date on the Deceleration of Independence.
I think these MP’s are dining on a fresh bowl of sour grapes.
It’s rare to see a comment that is so absolutely, completely, confirmably wrong.
the official UK Xitter account was banned
No, it wasn’t. That is fake news spread by right-wingers.
threatening extra-judicial extradition
No, they didn’t. They threatened UK-based Twitter users promoting violence and hatred that they could be prosecuted for it. The tweet in question was not intended for an international audience.
We fought a whole fucking war to not be subject to the UKs laws
Welcome to the globalised economy, if you want to trade in the UK, you are subject to the UK’s laws.
That is fake news spread by right-wingers.
Guess I’ll have to start fact checking on Mastadon.
No, they didn’t.
They threatened UK-based Twitter users
“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.
That’s the direct quote and it is what I am reacting to.
Welcome to the globalized economy, if you want to trade in the UK, you are subject to the UK’s laws.
You sure you want to play this game? You, as the symbolic UK, aren’t exactly coming with the best of hands.
Extra judicial what now?
If you’re claiming the head UK police officer said he’d kidnap people off the street of a foreign country like the fuckong CIA you’ve made a mistake.
Probably from reading too much crap on twitter
If you’re claiming the head UK police officer said he’d kidnap people off the street of a foreign country like the fuckong CIA you’ve made a mistake.
“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.
Probably from reading too much crap on twitter
Fuck Xitter, I been on it maybe 4 times in the past decade.
I think you really need to go look up what “extra judicial” means.
Also, you notice the quote doesn’t mention America at all? You seem to be of the very Angry Americans so perhaps you’re not aware but one UK citizen who has been convicted for this before, and founded a now banned organisation that existed to start these kinds of fights, was tweeting incitement from Cyprus (where he had gone to avoid yet another court appearance)
To anyone in the UK the quote you’ve given says “Tommy Robinson is gonna get nicked”
Yeah, I can’t really agree with the Brits on this one.
I think that what might happen in the long term is that different countries wind up with at least semi-separate social media platforms. Trying to create a least common denominator that everyone can live with just runs into too many problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinternet
The splinternet (also referred to as cyber-balkanization or internet balkanization) is a characterization of the Internet as splintering and dividing due to various factors, such as technology, commerce, politics, nationalism, religion, and divergent national interests. “Powerful forces are threatening to balkanise it”, wrote the Economist weekly in 2010, arguing it could soon splinter along geographic and commercial boundaries. The Chinese government erected the “Great Firewall” for political reasons, and Russia has enacted the Sovereign Internet Law that allows it to partition itself from the rest of the Internet. Other nations, such as the US and Australia, have discussed plans to create a similar firewall to block child pornography or weapon-making instructions.
I mean, I’m not going to have the British government censoring what I can see on political grounds. No way. And I’m sure that there are Brits who are appalled at seeing politically-extreme material that’s constitutionally-protected in the US showing up in front of their eyeballs.
And this is just the UK. Like, they’re maybe censorious by our standards, but it’s not even getting into stuff like Islamic countries and blasphemy law or Russia wanting state control over media because they don’t like criticism of the government.
Like, the best you might get is a common platform but with not everyone having the same view of the content on it, with some people having content censored in various ways, kind of like you get on the Threadiverse with defederations. Like, the government gets a kill switch over particular content on the view that their citizens have of information, but cannot disrupt communication between people outside of their jurisdiction.
It’s kind of unfortunate, because it decreases the gain potentially you get from leveraging network effect, where the value of the network rises with the square of the number of users.
I wish I could upvote your comment more than once. It’s just not possible to regulate a Social Media platform such that it complies with the cultural norms and speech laws of every country in the world while allowing the free flow of ideas and comments.
There was actually a really good RFC – if you’re not familiar with these, they’re normally the documents used to create most Internet standards, normally just address technical matter – put out a while back, “.sex considered dangerous”. At the time, Congress was considering passing laws to regulate obscenity on the entire Internet – a lot of the infrastructure of which we in the US ran – according to US social norms, because people were upset over access to pornography. While political speech is strongly-protected in the US, we do have an obscenity exception, and so pornographic content could be regulated in some forms, and had been, like on FCC-regulated broadcast radio and television. Parents were upset at this new Internet thing bringing lots of porn to their children, so the idea was “why don’t we just create an adult space on the Internet and make all that adult stuff go there”. And the answer here, which the RFC covers, along with some technical arguments, is that the Internet is global, and there are many different social norms around the world. You cannot just tell everyone to adopt your own. It doesn’t work.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3675
Legal and Philosophical Problems
When it comes to sexually-explicit material, every person, court, and government has a different view of what’s acceptable and what is not. Attitudes change over time, and what is viewed as appropriate in one town or year may spark protests in the next. When faced with the slippery nature of what depictions of sexual activity should be illegal or not, one U.S. Supreme Court justice blithely defined obscenity as: “I know it when I see it”.
In the U.S.A., obscenity is defined as explicit sexual material that, among other things, violates “contemporary community standards” – in other words, even at the national level, there is no agreed-upon rule governing what is illegal and what is not. Making matters more knotty is that there are over 200 United Nations country codes, and in most of them, political subdivisions can impose their own restrictions. Even for legal nude modeling, age restrictions differ. They’re commonly 18 years of age, but only 17 years of age in one Scandinavian country. A photographer there conducting what’s viewed as a legal and proper photo shoot would be branded a felon and child pornographer in the U.S.A. In yet other countries and groups, the entire concept of nude photography or even any photography of a person in any form may be religiously unacceptable.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark. Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter their Internet connection and have created government agencies to protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral. Their views on what should be included in a .sex domain would hardly be identical to those in liberal western nations.
Those wildly different opinions on sexual material make it inconceivable that a global consensus can ever be reached on what is appropriate or inappropriate for a .sex or .adult top-level domain. Moreover, the existence of such a domain would create an irresistible temptation on the part of conservative legislators to require controversial publishers to move to that domain and punish those who do not.
The shoe was on the other foot there – it was us talking about our government limiting what other people in the world have access to, but the point, I think, remains the same.
I’d also add that, regarding the stuff on political speech in particular, we have a legal history of Congress refusing to budge specifically on First Amendment matters involving foreign restriction of speech of Americans.
British libel law is far more favorable to plaintiffs than American libel law, due in part to the First Amendment in the US. So what a number of plaintiffs who kept being unable to sue someone over libel in the US tried doing was “libel tourism” – taking their case to a foreign jurisdiction and finding an angle to try to claim that jurisdiction applied and then trying to get judgements there and then to get the US to enforce it in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil
Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It is a book written by counterterrorism researcher Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and the Economic Warfare Institute. It was published by Bonus Books of Los Angeles, California in August 2003.
The book became the subject of international legal controversy when the Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz and his sons, Abdulrahman and Sultan, alleged in the book to be terrorist financiers, sued the author for libel in London. Although the book was not published in the United Kingdom, the lawsuit was made possible when 23 copies were purchased in England via online booksellers, and a chapter of the book was published for a short time on ABC TV’s website. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the British courts and did not appear to defend the suit. The High Court of Justice ruled against her by default. The court ordered her and her publisher to pay £10,000 in damages to each of the three plaintiffs, with an additional £80,000 costs for a total of £110,000. Further distribution of the book from the United States was also prohibited with a previous injunction being continued.[3] Ehrenfeld was also ordered to publish a correction and apology, but had no intention of complying.[4][5]
That resulted in Congress passing this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment (concerning freedom of speech), or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law.
The Act was passed unanimously in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (as H.R. 2765) before being signed by President Obama on August 10, 2010.
That’s a lot of words, why are you writing about libel and not writing about inciting riots?
Deceleration of independence
Lmao
Oh Man, what an embarrassing place for a spelling mistake! Oh well, I’m going to own it and move on. :)
