Really? Europeans mandate that media companies must allow competitors to advertise on their platforms for free? Interesting.

Eh, we are talking about users posting and using the links, that's not advertising by another company.

There are -at least- two serious problems for Twitter with this new rule:

1) It contains a clause ("We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above.") that basically nullifies the "rule". This basically makes Twitter decide whether things are according to the law or not - not the judicative/executive.
It's like "Welcome to my house, once you are here I will decide whether you are a guest or a burglar.", and your behaviour has little, if any, influence on the decision.

2) Removing links to other webpages (as long as no laws are violated) would make Twitter an editorial media and no longer a social media platform - which would in turn mean that Twitter becomes liable for any illegal content.

August, to give you a chance of reconsidering your previous posting: the Communication Decency Act and it's Section 230, mentioned by Dargo, are actually US laws (47 U.S.C. §230), not European laws.

Well gee whiz thanks for the chance but my question stands. Point to where in either set of laws it mandates that a business has to allow competitors to advertise on their property.

As this isn't a relevant point the question is moot. Posting a link isn't advertising.

I think the elephant in the room is the determination of "solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content". How is that measured? If the user posts pictures of a vacation once and everything else says go to XXXX it can no longer be defined as solely.

Says you. Musk banned accounts that were specifically set up to advertise other platforms. He's not banning cross posting as you imply.

I agree but the policy isn't worded to include the posting of a link. It's worded to stop a user account that only directs viewers elswhere, however, that doesn't mean it can't be abused to shut down an account. If it's an attempt to stop the jet tracker user all that user needs to do is add other content.

In essence, it's the same problem that occurs trying to legeslate gun controls. The terminology always limits the scope and work arounds can be found.

Faced with criticism of recent changes to Twitter, Elon Musk had polled users on whether he should step down as head of the social media site. The result: he should.

In the poll, which ended at 6:20 a.m. in New York (12:20 p.m. CET), about 57.5% of the 17.5 million voters voted yes. The billionaire, Twitter owner and Tesla CEO will abide by the vote, as he assured in a tweet on Sunday.



- source: Die Welt -

^ I voted yes.

No twitter user myself so no vote from me, but he certainly created a royal pig's breakfast.

He most certainly has :yep:

Can’t wait to see everyone’s reaction to Musk’s replacement. :haha:

I am wondering if he has had enough of trying to deal with unreasonable people who cry when they can't get their way.

Some of the complainers wouldn't be happy unless they got to pick the replacement.:yep:

I’m beginning to wonder what’s in the koolaid some people are drinking.

My god, think about it for a moment, PLEASE. Patting yourself on the back voting for something with absolutely no idea of what the result will be. Thinking that human exploration and pursuing advancements in technology and energy is something the world doesn’t need. And judging how another man should raise up his own family.

True for all elections :D

oh wait .. nothing changes after elections .. touché :oops: