Hacker News Reader

Comment by mqus | Hacker News Reader

Shouldn't they address Yaccarino, the actual CEO? I am aware that Musk still very much pulls the strings but if this is an official communication, official channels should be used? I'm not sure, the whole thing is just weird to me.

But I do not actually disagree with the content. Content moderation is definitely an issue Musk tries to ignore.

View on HN

I see no practical reason for doing so. There's one owner who has daily involvement and final decision making power that is often exercised. Of course they'd address it to him.

Thierry Breton, the author of the letter, appears to have a personal grudge against Elon Musk, and has directed several aggressive ultimatums towards him such as, "In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules," "You can run but you can't hide" and "Our teams will be ready for enforcement."

Breton is set to be the next EU Commissioner, succeeding Ursula Van Der Leyden.

I can get the frustration when someone whose job it is to enforce the law repeatedly comes up against someone in the public eye who openly flaunts their violation of the law wearing a shirt that says "make me" where other companies that have sane compliance departments just follow the law and course-correct when it's pointed out without the need for a big lawsuit.

Big, "I shouldn't have to keep wasting my time on this" energy.

If such a person is "frustrated" then it sounds like they don't actually have the power they claim to have, or, they would just file that "big lawsuit". And, if this is really his job, and he has the power to litigate this, then certainly this is what he should be "wasting" his time on, should it not?

You have an oddly efficient view of "government agency sues $company for doing obviously horrible thing." These lawsuits drag on for ages, become huge political battles, and are a just a huge expenditure of resources for everyone involved that it's saved as a last resort.

I don't think you would like living in a world where things like this could be settled swiftly and decisively. Having a government where voluntary compliance is the expected norm and applying real force takes time and resources is a feature not a bug.

Why should people and corporations voluntarily comply with stupid laws which limit freedom of expression? It would be better if everyone drags things out to the extent that those laws become unenforceable. In general, given that the EU itself is so fundamentally flawed, anything that undermines the power of EU bureaucrats and wastes their time is probably a net positive.

You just need to look at Twitter's downward slope towards the misinformation abyss to recognize the expected results of unmoderated expression. Bad actors take advantage of this freedom to drive up clicks with little regard for accuracy or nefarious side effects. If that only affects the platform, it requires no action from government: let Twitter circle the drain onto oblivion. If negative externalities affect society as a whole, intervention is required.

In short: freedom of expression isn't an absolute right. The EU is correct, blatantly false posts should be suppressed. Twitter should have a moderation team, twitter MUST have someone answer take-down requests.

Nah, I don't need to look at anything. I see little or no misinformation in my feed. If you see a lot then you're probably using it wrong.

Freedom of expression isn't absolute, but should be close to it. The EU (or constituent national governments) should adopt the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. We have an existence proof that it works better than whatever unprincipled, haphazard policies they happen to pursue.

> We have an existence proof that it works better than whatever unprincipled, haphazard policies they happen to pursue.

Do we have such an existence proof?

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/almo...

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/press-release/covid...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/tucker-carlsons-scorn-...

You have just provided links. That is not an argument.

Neither is the naked assertion "We have an existence proof." Especially in the context of a 250-year-old country stacked up against thousands-of-years-old countries.

Which countries specifically? Iceland? The USA has pretty much the oldest continuous government of any major country.

England has a monarchy going back thousands of years. Meanwhile, I think it remains to be seen if the younger governments failed to learn the right lessons from the US or have learned from the US's mistakes.

We shall see. Probably on the next quarter century, given how precarious the political situation is in the US right now.

> Nah, I don't need to look at anything.

This is not indicative of an open and inquisitive mentality.

> I see little or no misinformation in my feed. If you see a lot then you're probably using it wrong.

Another possibility is that you are experiencing confirmation bias.

However, I'll bite. What is the correct way to use twitter?

I don't need to look at anything because I already see my feed every day. There's no confirmation bias involved.

The correct way to use X is to follow high-quality accounts and like their posts. Mute or block low-quality accounts (including those reposted by accounts you do follow). Never read the replies as they are almost entirely junk.

The wheels of EU enforcement grind slow, but exceeding fine (eg the recent 1.2bn eur fine for Facebook was as a result of behaviour from 2020 onwards), so there's something to be said for warning someone off bad behaviour rather than just launching an enforcement action, because the enforcement action will probably take _years_.

No, that's not how the EU works.

EU fines have to be paid immediately and are transferred directly to the Commission's budget (making them a huge conflict of interest). Then, if you want, you can try to appeal and get your money back. That's the part that takes years.

This is the other way around to how law works in real democracies, where the government must actually win a case first before being able to levy punishment. But it's normal to be confused. The EU constitution dresses itself in the language and idioms of democracy without actually having the core spirit of it.

The 1.2bn fine is still, AIUI, appealable. It took years for the relevant regulator to lurch into action and levy it, as is standard for GDPR cases.

The USA works that way with Civil Asset Forfeiture. Cops take your money/property and you have to sue to prove your innocence to get it back.

That is one plausible scenario, but another is that Breton, by all accounts, an arrogant, petty autocrat, is simply attempting to impose his will, not just on Musk, but everyone else. The words he has chosen to use suggests the latter may be closer to the truth.

That's his ego talking.

Geez. Not a fan of foreign powers attempting to abridge free speech.

I mean, maybe? But who was the leader of the Soviet Union in early World War 2? Like, obviously, for all practical purposes, it was Stalin, and he was treated as such. But he was never the head of state, and he wasn't the head of government until 1941. At a certain point, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person who actually is in charge, is in charge, and ignore the figurehead altogether.

A CEO isn't really a particularly well-defined position under companies law anyway, in most cases. It's whatever the board says it is.

They know who the CEO really is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com