cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/post/163062
Last year Danny Mekić wrote this article : https://dannymekic.com/202310/undermining-democracy-the-european-commissions-controversial-push-for-digital-surveillance which was published in a newspaper and then the author got shadow-banned on X. Today the same Dutch newspaper reported that Mekić won two court-cases about this.
Dutch article about the verdict - paywall : https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/x-mag-gebruikers-niet-meer-zomaar-shadowbannen-oordeelt-amsterdamse-rechter~befb7fd0/
Archived copy : https://archive.ph/ckW2a
tl;dr English translation :
X is not allowed to shadow-ban users easily the judge said. Only during the court-case X explained why the account of Meki was shadow-banned : He had shared an article about the CSAM law on X. “I still
do not understand why X this only said in the court hall, rather than telling me right away when I
asked about it” Mekić said.
- Mekić on Mastodon : https://mastodon.social/@DannyMekic
- The author’s username on X : DannyMekic
- Article from last year by WIRED : https://www.wired.com/story/csar-chat-scan-proposal-european-commission-ads/
It is nonsense that courts can require an online platform to host content from somebody they don’t agree with, this is compelled speech. And we’re cheering it on because X is seen as a political opponent. It sure will be fun when the shoe is on the other foot and courts are thinking they have some right to force lemmy to host or not host certain kinds of content that doesn’t agree w the new party line or is “misinformation”. “COVID was a lab leak” was misinformation until the world government’s decided it might actually have merit as an idea. Handing the government speech control powers like this is dangerous. Democracy relies on people being able to choose what they say and don’t say and share or not share that information.
I’m cheering this on among others because the shadow-banned person wrote something important about a sick EU law proposal that tried to break E2EE.
Truth is : either they are a infrastructure provider and they allow everything inside the free speech of each country they operate in, either they choose what gets promoted or is allowed differently from the local free speech and they are an editor. They can’t (and imho should never have been allowed to) choose only the benefits of each one without any obligation.
No one is forcing Twatter to say anything, they are forced to let someone say something.
It is a result of free speech. Although not from the American perspective, as that only relates to the government. However, over here it also means that the government has to enforce your rights against others too. And since platforms like facebook and Twatter are as big as they are… Tough luck for them to have to host someone linking to a news article they wrote.