OK, so EU is allowed to manipulate social media under various threats, and now when some social media says enough of this, they are criminalized? And people are applauding it?
Basically it's a discovery process before a litigation. I'm 99.99% sure it won't end up in a lawsuit.
My bet is that the probe will end up saying: 'criminal intent can't be proven'. Then either the parquet (basically DOJ but less political) or customer protection will say "this probe showed that your algorithm wasn't neutral, you choose which content to show and which not show, you're a publisher now" and Twitter will have to prove it's not, or be treated as a publisher.
Nothing.
There is an investigation (there are named offenses that are the main, but not stated as exclusive, focus), not an accusation against X and various individuals.
The investigation may, depending on what it finds, result in accusations against some or all of the people on whom the investigation is focused, but whether it will and what the accusations will be is not known until the investigation has occurred.
Why is it ok for you to have a billionaire do whatever he wants, including spreading disinformation and propaganda, and allow for bot networks to spread propaganda from foreign agents, without any accountability?
Why should we have no rules for social media, while all the remaining media have to abide by laws and are held accountable for it?
Why should a billionaire have more power than the people who voted?
If there's a conspiracy of corruption/lobbying/interests behind those countries' decisions, it's a completely different problem that is for those countries' regulators to control, and/or for the people to choose to vote for someone else.
France isn't Russia or Iran, where you have an illegitimate regime that does whatever it wants above their law and constitution.
A Conspiracy Theory doesn't give any right to the billionaire owner of the social network to be above the law.
So don't try to spin your irrelevant bad takes on me, own up to them.
> What we are seeing...
What you're seeing is that a billionaire is being held accountable, and for some unknown reason, you don't like it. You don't represent the opinion of anyone but yourself.
But you're resorting to:
- fallacy‑fallacy by assuming my argument is wrong just because you claim to see a fallacy.
- and to gish‑gallop by trying to overwhelm and make me look up your allegations of me using your list of fallacies.
Overall, it's a poor attempt to escape the argument. That's a wrap.
Do you believe that your political opponents investigating an "algorithm" to prove it is "manipulated" would not already have written the output of this investigation?
Every freaking machine learning model has a bias. ask GPT or anthropic about palestine or even Trump, ask Deepseek about tiananmen. If you search for something you will find it. I could take GPT and prove its "manipulated" toward any race I want. Ill just start from this affirmation and then find things good enough to prove it to random people that will read the billionaire backed press that you praise
> Every freaking machine learning model has a bias.
You're saying this like there's no human decision behind it. As if it's an act of nature and "oh well that's how it turned out to be!", without any concern for legality, revenue, growth, user engagement, nothing matters, it's just "the algorithm doing its thing".
Every social media algorithm is tailored, and people continually modify them. Heck, Google even named their algorithm updates for search!
But let's entertain that idea of lack of agency - just because they don't have agency over the algorithm (which they do), they can still shut it down. If they can't control whether an algorithm promotes illegal stuff, or if it's being massively used by foreign agents' bot networks, then should they be running their own business?
But hey, somehow they have it figured out for advertisers! lmao
[0]https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/17/24298669/musk-trump-endo...
They are using a system where the winner is whoever gets more than 50%, but if nobody gets more than 50% they hold a run-off vote between the top two from the first vote.
The problem is that Romania has several viable political parties, which would be great if they used an election system designed to handle that like ranked choice, but in a top two run-off system has a high chance of electing someone that a large majority of the voters rank near the bottom of the candidates.
In the election you are referring to there were candidates from 10 different parties plus 4 independents running. I believe 6 of the parties were right-wing and 4 left-wing. The right-wing parties got 47% of the votes, with the top 3 of them getting 19.18%, 13.86%, and 8.79%.
The left-wing parties got 20% with the highest part getting 19.15%.
Independents got 33% with the highest individual getting 22.94%.