377
Australia fines Musk's X platform $386,000 over anti-child abuse gaps
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
377 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
918 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fediverse is a bunch of independent websites potentially connected by compatible software, not one entity, so there’s not really a basis for comparison. You could ask about individual instances. But also it’s about “failing to cooperate with a probe into anti-child abuse practices”, not hosting or failing to moderate material. Australian law says they can asks sites about their policies and they have to at least respond.
Does responding with the poop emoji count?
The article has their response. Given their warning to google as well, apparently the responses also have to be good enough for them.
They said
So yes, all the questions need to be at least addressed and probably saying “we don’t do that because Elron doesn’t care about it” wouldn’t suffice either.
Cool, see my first comment again
You mean, is the Fediverse doing any better? Why would I need to read that again?
because we've gone in a circle of me asking if the site we are on right now is doing anything better with regards to this problematic material, since folks seem to care about Twitters failure to address it themselves. You respond that it's not about their lack of addressing the material, but they're lack of a response to the regulatory inquiry. I point out that they did respond, and your response is that oh they actually need to have a good answer of how they are addressing the material. Which is the same premise as the article and what my first comment was about. It's hypocrisy, because the standard isnt being applied to the fediverse, no one is up in arms about our lack of automatic detection of problematic material or surveillance of private messaging. Because we care about privacy when we're not being blinded by well intentioned Musk hate.
I posted from the article that they didn't respond to several questions:
I speculated that probably they also need adequate responses, but that's not what the article or the fine is about.
If one of the individual sites in the Fediverse was asked by Australian regulators, I bet they'd respond fully. It's not quite the same situation as Twitter, either - none of these sites are large enough to require many staff members, and don't have their own live streaming platform.