MovieChat Forums > Elon Musk Discussion > 𝕏 (Twitter) Facing Potential Ban in the...

𝕏 (Twitter) Facing Potential Ban in the UK


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elon-musk-starmer-x-twitter-banned-uk-b2593108.html

Elon Musk has been criticised for his handling of disinformation on Twitter / X as he clashes with Keir Starmer over far-right riots which have gripped parts of the UK.

The US businessman, who bought the social media platform in 2022, launched a tirade of posts in which he mocked and criticised the UK prime minister. Following a statement from the Labour leader criticising the attacks on Muslim communities, Musk questioned why “all communities” should not be protected.

He later reposted this comment, alongside several memes which depict the UK’s criminal justice system as racially biased, as well as calling the Labour leader “#twotierkeir.” This echoes a far-right talking point which alleges that policing in the UK is more severe towards right-wing people.

It comes as critics say Musk has allowed disinformation to spread on Twitter since his takeover of the platform. During his tenure, he has let go of around 6,000 staff, or 80 per cent of the workforce, including the entire moderation team. He has also allowed previously banned users like Donald Trump, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson.

On Sunday, Musk replied to a video of rioting in the UK originally posted by Robinson. Analysts say this boosted the right-wing organiser’s reach, with Musk’s reply now reaching 9.2 million views.

Addressing the role of social media during the riots, technology secretary Peter Kyle said: “I have been clear it is unacceptable that people are using social media to cause damage, distress and destruction in our communities.

“Today I had useful meetings with TikTok, Meta, Google and X, to make clear their responsibility to continue to work with us to stop the spread of hateful misinformation and incitement. There is a significant amount of content circulating that platforms need to be dealing with at pace.”

Encrypted messaging service Telegram has moved to remove channels organising far-right riots after it was thought many people organised anonymously on the platform for events last week.

A spokesperson for the Russian-owned tech firm said: “Telegram’s terms of service explicitly forbid calls to violence. Moderators use a combination of proactive monitoring of public parts of the platform and user reports in order to remove content that breaches our terms of service.”

Musk’s social media activity shows that he is less willing to engage with calls for moderation. With tensions rising between the billionaire and the prime minister, many are wondering what the future of Twitter / X could be in Britain.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/why-eu-ban-twitter-uk-disinformation-content-elon-musk-sanctions-stress-test-b1044096.html


https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/comments/1eno91y/%F0%9D%95%8F_twitter_facing_potential_ban_in_the_uk/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/comments/1enoe8g/as_elon_musk_clashes_with_keir_starmer_could/

reply

This won't happen.

However, I do think it's time the Labour government nut up and just tell all Labour MPs to quit twitter, and tell all local authorities, civil servants et to quit twitter on their official accounts. Either help support another service, or relocate to somewhere else. At some point you have to just write a platform off. You can't win via lawfare here - you play right into Elon Musks hands and victim complex, and going too hard risks the UK being geoblocked.

But trying to spearhead an exodus would piss Elon Musk off.

reply

Skavau impulsively sides with the censorious authoritarian regime 👆🏻 Pure evil.

reply

I literally said the exact opposite in response to the title. Can you actually read?

"This won't happen."

and "You can't win via lawfare here"

---

Are you back to devoting your entire online life to following me around the website?

reply

Dishonest straw response. What you think will happen is irrelevant, the point is that you side with the censorious authoritarian regime. Pure evil.

reply

What's the straw response?

How did I side with them? If you read the other chain here, you'll specifically see that I'm against some of the plans being spitballed here.

reply

What you think will happen is irrelevant, the point is that you side with the censorious authoritarian regime. Pure evil.

reply

I also disagreed that it should happen. You clearly didn't read anything I actually said further down.

I don't "side" with said "regime" at all.

Also, there's been no official proposal for any such ban in the first place. The article is literally speculating about whether or not the relationship could break down to that point.

reply

I don’t care what you said ‘further down’, it’s clear from your post that you’ve made the saviour of free speech online - Elon Musk - into your enemy, and you of course support the evil authoritarian Starmer regime who, like you, beat off to censoring independent thinkers.

reply

>I don’t care what you said ‘further down’,

You mean you don't care about what I **actually said**, that I don't think Twitter should be banned (and there's no such proposal to ban it anyway - this article is completely speculative).

So when you say that you "don't care" what I said further down, you're essentially admitting that you're deliberately lying about what I think. You think that's moral?

> it’s clear from your post that you’ve made the saviour of free speech online - Elon Musk - into your enemy,

When did I call Elon Musk an enemy? I think he's a dick, but that doesn't mean he's an "enemy".

Also, not sure how he's a saviour of free speech at all. His platform openly works with authoritarian regimes to remove content. He never says much about when he has to do that on their requests.

>and you of course support the evil authoritarian Starmer regime

The "evil authoritarian Starmer regime"? You mean the elected government of the United Kingdom as of July 4th 2024? That "regime"?

And when did I say I specifically supported him? You have no idea how I voted in the last election.

>beat off to censoring independent thinkers.

I have never done anything like this ever.

reply


The UK's Online Safety Act (which regulates social media) doesn't come into effect until next year. When it does, the ultimate penalty will be an outright ban on a non-compliant app. However, a fine of 10% of the app's global revenue is also an option. It would take a great deal of non-compliance for the UK to ban Twitter. So, while it's theoretically possible, it's vanishingly unlikely to happen.

The EU has a similar law -- the Digital Services Act -- that has already come into effect. The EU can ban a social media app or fine it 6% of its global revenue. And they're already deep into an investigation of Twitter / X, with Musk rather foolishly attempting to take them on (at least publicly).

It's that market Musk should fear because that legislation exists in part as an attempt to stem the tide of a perceived American cultural invasion... something continental Europeans are more concerned about, unfortunately, than the British. We should be much more concerned about that ourselves.

So the EU would be prepared to move more swiftly towards a ban than the UK would be. Even there, however, it would take a lot. They'd really much prefer the app to begin complying with European law and cultural standards within its territories. Twitter can do what it likes in its own backyard. We're not the same over here.

reply

I do think however that we need to drop the "legal but harmful" thing. That's dystopian as fuck, and frankly would just see the UK geoblocked.

What we can do is try to heavily come down on Twitter for not removing incitements to violence and threats quickly, consistently and effectively. Talking about fake news restrictions seems like unwinnable overreach, or widening the scope to social media at large seems completely implausible and dangerous for our tech reputation. Our government has already had to abandon or put on ice so many attempts at social media regulation because of how unworkable and/or authoritarian many of them are.

In the short term, I think its time for the civil service, and public service accounts and Labour MPs to quit Twitter entirely. Time to put their money where their mouth is.

reply

Yeah, 'legal but harmful' isn't very helpful wording. I assume that's supposed to cover disinformation, which is itself notoriously difficult to define legally... before you even get into how to define harm or how to prove intent to cause harm.

And that particular phrase is far too open to interpretation and can clearly be abused. So, yes, I agree that it's overreach. However, I support attempts to regulate American social media companies to conform with our domestic values. I think the USA has done enough damage to our political discourse over the last ten years or so. And it must be stopped.

Whether this is the way to achieve that aim is, however, debatable.

reply

>Yeah, 'legal but harmful' isn't very helpful wording. I assume that's supposed to cover disinformation, which is itself notoriously difficult to define legally... before you even get into how to define harm or how to prove intent to cause harm.

"Two-tier kier" is technically disinformation, or could be so considered, but I dislike the idea of the government or some appointed authority having the authority to determine that.

There are many steps we can take first, and should take. The first should just be to spearhead people leaving Twitter really. At some point you have to stop whining and just stop using the damn platform.

reply


Do you remember when we all thought the internet was going to be this wonderful global network, connecting people on an equal basis around the world? And then we handed it over to American corporations and it became the most powerful tool of soft power they've ever had -- with all the cultural traffic still heading one way.

Fundamentally, something needs to be done about that -- because they're a basket case. The contagion must be contained.

But it would be lovely if that 'something' were primarily consumer-led.

reply

It should be banned everywhere. Twitter was never perfect. But at least they tried to ban terrorists, liars etc. There was some moderation.

When Musk bought it - he released all terrorists propagandists, all liars and spreads lies without banning those to constantly do that. Because he likes what they lie about. He agrees with their position on politics and so he allows them to lie and boost them retweeting himself many of their lies.

Countries should ban twitter or allow it to be sued. For lying about people. Let him pay millions to victims every day. He will close it himself.

reply

Empowering governments to have the power to determine what is or is not lies or misinformation is not a good road to treck down.

reply

You have thousands of empty headed trumpists running around and screaming nonsense they read on twitter and believed it's true.

reply

You also have dumb liberals saying stuff like JD Vance fucked a couch. The guy even used a fake citation in tweet. So he should definitely be banned for misinformation in your opinion right? He wasn’t.

reply

JD Vance and a couch is obviously trolling. Lefties learned from trumpists to lie-troll.

reply

If you have even half a brain, your bullshit meter should be going off when you hear something like this.

But still, he posted it as a fact, he even cited the page numbers in the book where it was supposedly written. Which was all false and debunked. He created and spread misinformation, which is still being spread now. If you believe misinformation should moderated, then you should be against this, as it’s a pretty clear cut case, or you are guilty of doing what you accuse Elon Musk of doing.

reply

Yes. I share some of Skavau's misgivings about government control, but ultimately it comes down to the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' adage, doesn't it? There are acknowledged limits on free speech. It needs to be balanced against other rights.

And it is government's role -- at least over here in Europe -- to protect its citizens. There are still facts in this world. So there are still some objective measures for lies and misinformation. But there's also a large grey area that would fall under the rubrik of 'opinion' or 'interpretation', and no legislation should be so overly broad as to limit dissenting opinion or interpretation, however much we may disagree with it.

I do think targeted legislation that would deal with the clear and obvious issues of social media regulation is possible. I do accept, however, that it's difficult to strike the right balance.

reply

What you mean is they shadow banned everyone whose opinions didn't march in lockstep with the overwhelmingly leftist staff at Twitter (and the other tech giants). Musk finally broke that monopoly at one company at least, and "progressives" have been losing their minds over it ever since. You want to talk about spreading lies? Okay, let's. Twitter, as it was formerly run, spread the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop story was "Russian disinformation." Only that wasn't disinformation; it was the truth, as we now know. The story was suppressed by a left-leaning tech company to put a thumb on the scale of the election, and help get a leftist president elected.

Musk understood that what the tech giants were doing -- controlling information -- was extremely Orwellian. If you can control what people know, you can control what they think, and if you can do that, you can influence how they act. And you appear to be okay with that, because they were banning opinions of which you disapprove. That is foolish. Suppressing "disinformation" means empowering some individual or group to determine what disinformation is. And again, this is the power to control what people think and how they act. That is serious power, and power like that will always attract the worst bullies in society; they get off on having power over others. It isn’t likely that this will become tyrannical, it is inevitable. And that may still seem okay to you, because those bullies have your same ideology. Again, this is foolish. Because that power could be seized by other people, with different ideas, or -- and history shows this a lot -- tyrants just love them some purges. All it takes is to utter one unapproved idea, and now you are accused of spreading "disinformation," and canceled.

The solution is free speech. If someone says something you don't like, refute it, don't censor it.

reply

Again - it's not free speech what Must has done. Free speech is when you can say what you think. Share opinion.

Musk just unleashed mass propaganda of lies. Anyone can lie and present it as fact. And fool people. Musk himself often re-tweets lies to give them boost.

reply

Again - it's not free speech what Must has done. Free speech is when you can say what you think. Share opinion.

Musk just unleashed mass propaganda of lies. Anyone can lie and present it as fact. And fool people.

That is EXACTLY what free speech is. You don't have free speech, if people aren't able to do this. When people have free speech, some people are going to say truly awful things, Others are going to lie and misrepresent and be dishonest. There's no avoiding this, because human nature is what it is, and we will always have bad actors among us. But the solution is not censorship. The solution is to counter the dishonest statements and terrible ideas, with truthful statements and better ideas. You persuade people, you don't suppress information.

And I'm not prepared to accept your assertion at face value that Musk is retweeting "lies." I'm sure he is posting things with which you disagree, but that does not automatically mean they are lies. Even if he is retweeting something incorrect, there's also the possibility that he's not deliberately lying, he's simply in error. And if we have free speech, we have to be able to say anything, even if it's wrong.

But if you're in favor of banning X, or of setting up a "ministry of truth" to weed out "disinformation" or "hate speech," just stop pretending you support anything like free speech. Just stop. You don't. You want to control what people hear, and that is the opposite of supporting freedom of expression. Just go ahead and embrace your inner tyrant. That's still pretty awful, but at least you'll be laying aside hypocrisy, which is something I suppose.

reply

I'm a Brit here. Musk has retweeted some supposed examples of two-tier policing that were misleading.

He also shared fake news about the rioters being sent to the Falklands:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/08/elon-musk-shares-faked-telegraph-story-rioters-falklands-camps

reply

Well, whether or not he was acting dishonestly, or whether he was simply deceived and retweeting something he didn't know to be incorrect, the solution is the same: debunk the falsehood. Suppressing disapproved speech will inevitably lead to authoritarianism.

Look, it boils down to this: if you believe in freedom, that includes freedom of speech, and you have to allow people to say whatever they wish, short of actual incitement to violence. And you have to have a certain amount of faith that most of your fellow human beings, if presented with all the facts, will be smart enough and decent enough to come to the proper conclusions.

The late Robert A. Heinlein put it rather well:

Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

And I think Heinlein was being more than a little sarcastic when he said "The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number."

Bottom line is, if you think some speech has to be suppressed, if you think there are some things people shouldn't be allowed to hear -- for their own good, of course -- it's unmistakably clear which side of the divide you fall on: the one that wants people to be controlled.

And that's not very consistent with the ideals of freedom, human rights and the worth of the individual.

reply

>Well, whether or not he was acting dishonestly, or whether he was simply deceived and retweeting something he didn't know to be incorrect, the solution is the same: debunk the falsehood. Suppressing disapproved speech will inevitably lead to authoritarianism.

This implies he's a bit credulous. Many of his examples of two-tier policing in the UK he's posted or retweeted have been misleading.

And I agree, I am not calling for 'misinformation' to be banned. Just noting that Elon Musk does spread a lot of it.

reply

Well, Musk is a busy man, running X, Space-X, Tesla, and probably any number of other irons he has in the fire. And all while living outside the UK. What you take for being credulous may simply be a very busy man giving a somewhat cursory look to the situation, and falling for things he'd see through if he took the time to have a closer look.

Or he may simply have a different perspective. I won't pretend to know the reason behind his actions. But again, whether he is acting honestly or dishonestly, censoring his or anyone else's speech is the wrong road to go down. It leads to a very dark destination.

reply

>Well, Musk is a busy man, running X, Space-X, Tesla, and probably any number of other irons he has in the fire. And all while living outside the UK. What you take for being credulous may simply be a very busy man giving a somewhat cursory look to the situation, and falling for things he'd see through if he took the time to have a closer look.

Busy? Dude, he spends all of his time tweeting and retweeting.

reply

All? Let's not exaggerate. This conversation, just these few posts, have taken a total of not much more than five minutes out of my day. Just how much time do you think it takes Musk to pick up his smart phone or tablet, and fire off a couple of tweets? How hard would it be to sandwich those moments in between his other endeavors?

But either way, it hardly matters. As I said, the solution for anything false or misleading he might post is the same in either case.

reply

In the last 24 hours, Elon Musk has tweeted or retweeted over 120 times (roughly). Much of it is shitposting or just misinformation or nonsense.

For a super-busy rich guy.

reply

Meh... I'm not on X, so I'd hardly know. I can't say I'm that interested in following what famous people are doing either.

reply

The two Political Parties in Britain have become so boring and equal in their stupid policies that the people have already started to realize that it is one and the same party run by the same centre.

And all this in the face of the great financial decline of the population and a drastic increase in social problems. Both Labor and Conservative parties pursue the same policies without any difference.

The war in Ukraine which they support with billions of borrowed money, the military aid to Zionism which controls Britain from the center of Tel Aviv, the importation of illegal unverified immigrants, which miraculously most happened during the time of the Conservatives, who according to all anonymous idiot's rules and regulations, as a right wing party they should be against immigration.

All these are the policies that both parties implemented and supported.

The people started to become aware of this, so there was a need for a new drama in the country.

So they activate the Mossad idiot Tommy Robinson, who managed from a tragic attack on children by a psychopath from a Christian family, born in Britain, to cause racist, anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist, pro-Muslim protests and protestors who began to fight each other, while he was sunbathing on the beach in Cyprus in a 5-star hotel.

They also activated Elon Musk and his favourite drama illusion contained by left and right ideological nonsense, which has no difference between them.

And now the focus is completely off the real problem, and people are fighting, arguing and getting arrested over left-right ideologies and similar crap like in the good old days.

reply

>The two Political Parties in Britain have become so boring and equal in their stupid policies that the people have already started to realize that it is one and the same party run by the same centre.

A good thing the UK parliament is more third party than it has been in a long time.

>The war in Ukraine which they support with billions of borrowed money, the military aid to Zionism which controls Britain from the center of Tel Aviv, the importation of illegal unverified immigrants, which miraculously most happened during the time of the Conservatives, who according to all anonymous idiot's rules and regulations, as a right wing party they should be against immigration.

Are you aware of the public opinion regarding the war in Ukraine?

Lets put it this way: Uk, perhaps excluding Poland, is the most pro-Ukraine countries on earth.

>The people started to become aware of this, so there was a need for a new drama in the country.

Everything else below is just [citation needed]

reply

Good. Twitter is the biggest threat to a civilized society.

reply