Seems like this would be beneficial for Twitter since it exempts them from the extra regulation that being a DMA "gatekeeper" entails. It seems like the main target of the DMA is front-page of the web/device interaction type entities like search results pages or app stores. Being designated seems to mean you're subject to more requirements around fairness, self-promotion, and access rights.
X also submitted rebuttal arguments, explaining why its online social networking service should not, in its view, qualify as an important gateway between businesses and consumers
The Commission is just agreeing with X’s own arguments.
It's a joke; in reality, X/Twitter got the outcome they wanted here, which is for the commission to rule they do not need to follow DMA supplemental guidelines which apply to gatekeeper businesses. The language in this announcement is completely pro forma, but taken out of context, sounds a bit like they're saying X/Twitter is bad at their advertising line of business.
The owner of Twitter is much richer than the CEO of Facebook.
But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media.
Yes I know this is about the EU.
I’m more worried about a powerful government. Government has a “monopoly on violence”. Especially in the US between the electoral college, gerrymandering and the make up of Congress. It’s very much rule by the minority.
The extent to which poor people can appropriate a portion of that governmental "monopoly on violence" through democracy is the only real check on violence by the wealthy.
Otherwise, wealth always wins. And uses those wins to ensure it remains wealthy.
And rule by billionaires or hedge funds is preferable? They don't need physical violence to enshittify societies, especially since so much of government already responds only to that class. They ARE the ruling minority and what's left of democratic government is the only (dying) check against them. Soon there won't be any checks left and you'll get your wish of direct rule by the rich.
Unfortunately in the US many important agencies chose to use it to publish announcements, even for important public safety things. I don't have an account and am thus prevented from seeing what the agencies are saying. I would like to see regulations preventing governments from doing this.
This is lazy argument. Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries.
Commission could be directly elected as well, but no country wants that because then national states would lose relevance - as the local governments would loose control.
The bus company I use only publishes real-time status updates (e.g. delayed/cancelled busses) on X (formally known as Twitter), there are no other bus companies in the area and without logging in X forces timelines to be out of order or hidden.
I don't get why so many organizations do this. Wouldn't you just want some kind of ticker on your website? The whole social aspect of Twitter doesn't matter for this, they just want to push out timestamped messages in a queue. Is it so hard to host something that does this?
Try to write them. Our national train company moved from Twitter to Mastodon. Barely anyone is using Mastodon but anyone can read the posts without restrictions. That was not the case with the Twitter.
Is there anyone who used to use Twitter that doesn't now already know that it's called "X?" How many years will it take before we just accept its new name?
Original link is to a press release feed which includes material unrelated to headline; the URL for the specific press release related to the headline of the OP is:
I mean, it's fair. I don't really use social media bar forums (HN and P&P RPG), and always had minimal presence on them, but nowadays, especially in France, it seems nothing of importance is on twitter.
FIFA and FIBA were never big on those platforms, using instagram instead, it was mostly invested by politics or other people trying to emulate/simulate the US media space. The only people i know outside of tech and politics who use twitter are NBA fans.
To me using it in europe is a clear marker of americanization, and most europeans aren't americanized yet, so it isn't really am important gateway.
That's an old decision to open an investigation into X. Presumably, that investigation has now concluded producing the finding being announced today.
According to the press release, "The non-confidential version of the decision will be published on the Commission's DMA website[1]," but it doesn't appear to have been published there yet.
Is that true in the EU? In the US, there are certainly agencies and local governments who primarily or only communicate real time news through Twitter. Even other tech companies do this instead of posting on their own blogs or forums. It's annoying as heck, especially since Musk made it so that you can't see the latest posts without an account.
> Is that true in the EU? In the US, there are certainly agencies and local governments who primarily or only communicate real time news through Twitter.
Hard to say how it works across the EU, but in Spain, there was a point where many of the various local arms of government did use Twitter as the primary tool to reach people, at least here in Barcelona/Catalunya. Not all agencies, and never as the only communication tool, but things often appeared there first.
At one point, Telegram was added to the mix, and seems it's usage is kind of spread now, but again, never the only communication path, just another channel. Twitter usage fell at some point too.
All the important information still goes out via proper websites.
That a government agency would use a for-profit platform for its primary and only way of communicating with the citizens sounds absolutely bananas to me, but I guess it makes sense for a country centered around for-profit enterprises.
Yeah, and in the US, governments are typically pretty poorly resourced and IT starved. The average local gov can barely use MS Office, much less manage a proper blog site.
The federal / state / local divide makes it more complicated too. We don't have one government but several, usually at least four (fed, state, county, city), not even counting the agencies that actually do things. They all end up reinventing the wheel in some shitty way or else just using some staffer's Twitter or Facebook account.
> The federal / state / local divide makes it more complicated too. We don't have one government but several, usually at least four (fed, state, county, city),
It's exactly the same here (except besides those, we also have the various EU entities "above", so I guess more complicated actually?), my Spanish and Catalan compatriots seem to handle that just fine.
I'm jealous! The EU in general seems much more livable, at least the parts I've visited. The US is a pretty gilded but otherwise relatively dysfunctional society.
`curl -v https://twitter.com` returns HTTP 302 for me, which is kind of funny. If the redirect was permanent, they'd use HTTP 301 (Moved Permanently) but instead they use HTTP 302 is amounts to "Moved Temporarily".
I wonder if there is still a chance it'll move back to Twitter so people can start to recognize it again.
Seems like this would be beneficial for Twitter since it exempts them from the extra regulation that being a DMA "gatekeeper" entails. It seems like the main target of the DMA is front-page of the web/device interaction type entities like search results pages or app stores. Being designated seems to mean you're subject to more requirements around fairness, self-promotion, and access rights.
All this gleaned from this official summary article from the EU: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
"...given that the investigation revealed that X is not an important gateway for business users to reach end users"
EU commission bringing the sick burns
X also submitted rebuttal arguments, explaining why its online social networking service should not, in its view, qualify as an important gateway between businesses and consumers
The Commission is just agreeing with X’s own arguments.
Why would we want powerful unelected government bureaucrats engaged in "sick burns?"
It's a joke; in reality, X/Twitter got the outcome they wanted here, which is for the commission to rule they do not need to follow DMA supplemental guidelines which apply to gatekeeper businesses. The language in this announcement is completely pro forma, but taken out of context, sounds a bit like they're saying X/Twitter is bad at their advertising line of business.
The powerful unelected government bureaucrats are the only people protecting users from powerful unelected billionaire bureaucrats.
The owner of Twitter is much richer than the CEO of Facebook.
But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media.
Yes I know this is about the EU.
I’m more worried about a powerful government. Government has a “monopoly on violence”. Especially in the US between the electoral college, gerrymandering and the make up of Congress. It’s very much rule by the minority.
The extent to which poor people can appropriate a portion of that governmental "monopoly on violence" through democracy is the only real check on violence by the wealthy.
Otherwise, wealth always wins. And uses those wins to ensure it remains wealthy.
> But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media.
Anyone in a failing democracy. No one gets to opt out of the collective effects of social media
And rule by billionaires or hedge funds is preferable? They don't need physical violence to enshittify societies, especially since so much of government already responds only to that class. They ARE the ruling minority and what's left of democratic government is the only (dying) check against them. Soon there won't be any checks left and you'll get your wish of direct rule by the rich.
You need protection from X? You can just not use it.
Unfortunately in the US many important agencies chose to use it to publish announcements, even for important public safety things. I don't have an account and am thus prevented from seeing what the agencies are saying. I would like to see regulations preventing governments from doing this.
Agree that there should be laws preventing public entities from using private social networks to exclusively distribute content. ("Also" is fine)
It's lazy and unconscionable from a democracy perspective.
You can just use their websites instead. But that does involve looking them up.
Unfortunately there is a lot that they either never publish on their website at all or do so very late.
This is lazy argument. Commission is nominated like any other ministry from elected coalitions in particular countries.
Commission could be directly elected as well, but no country wants that because then national states would lose relevance - as the local governments would loose control.
If that were true, explain how Ursula von der Leyen, who never got elected into any EU positions became head of the European Commission
The bus company I use only publishes real-time status updates (e.g. delayed/cancelled busses) on X (formally known as Twitter), there are no other bus companies in the area and without logging in X forces timelines to be out of order or hidden.
gatekeeper for me.
I don't get why so many organizations do this. Wouldn't you just want some kind of ticker on your website? The whole social aspect of Twitter doesn't matter for this, they just want to push out timestamped messages in a queue. Is it so hard to host something that does this?
A company using only one service for something, when they could easily use another, or their own website, doesn't turn that service into a gatekeeper.
Try to write them. Our national train company moved from Twitter to Mastodon. Barely anyone is using Mastodon but anyone can read the posts without restrictions. That was not the case with the Twitter.
I'd rather it just be on the website or app with an rss feed.
Is there anyone who used to use Twitter that doesn't now already know that it's called "X?" How many years will it take before we just accept its new name?
"The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" wants a word.
I was just copying what the mainstream media currently calls it (X, formally known as Twitter) which I find funny.
Original link is to a press release feed which includes material unrelated to headline; the URL for the specific press release related to the headline of the OP is:
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-conclude...
I feel if this was tried before Musk took over, the result could have been quite different.
Why is that?
Power
my guess is because it required blatantly lying about not being a comms channels. it would definitely give different.
I mean, it's fair. I don't really use social media bar forums (HN and P&P RPG), and always had minimal presence on them, but nowadays, especially in France, it seems nothing of importance is on twitter.
FIFA and FIBA were never big on those platforms, using instagram instead, it was mostly invested by politics or other people trying to emulate/simulate the US media space. The only people i know outside of tech and politics who use twitter are NBA fans.
To me using it in europe is a clear marker of americanization, and most europeans aren't americanized yet, so it isn't really am important gateway.
so TikTok is one, but X is not. Hmm.
In case anyone is interested in reading the actual decision:
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
That's an old decision to open an investigation into X. Presumably, that investigation has now concluded producing the finding being announced today.
According to the press release, "The non-confidential version of the decision will be published on the Commission's DMA website[1]," but it doesn't appear to have been published there yet.
[1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en
Is that true in the EU? In the US, there are certainly agencies and local governments who primarily or only communicate real time news through Twitter. Even other tech companies do this instead of posting on their own blogs or forums. It's annoying as heck, especially since Musk made it so that you can't see the latest posts without an account.
> Is that true in the EU? In the US, there are certainly agencies and local governments who primarily or only communicate real time news through Twitter.
Hard to say how it works across the EU, but in Spain, there was a point where many of the various local arms of government did use Twitter as the primary tool to reach people, at least here in Barcelona/Catalunya. Not all agencies, and never as the only communication tool, but things often appeared there first.
At one point, Telegram was added to the mix, and seems it's usage is kind of spread now, but again, never the only communication path, just another channel. Twitter usage fell at some point too.
All the important information still goes out via proper websites.
That a government agency would use a for-profit platform for its primary and only way of communicating with the citizens sounds absolutely bananas to me, but I guess it makes sense for a country centered around for-profit enterprises.
Yeah, and in the US, governments are typically pretty poorly resourced and IT starved. The average local gov can barely use MS Office, much less manage a proper blog site.
The federal / state / local divide makes it more complicated too. We don't have one government but several, usually at least four (fed, state, county, city), not even counting the agencies that actually do things. They all end up reinventing the wheel in some shitty way or else just using some staffer's Twitter or Facebook account.
> The federal / state / local divide makes it more complicated too. We don't have one government but several, usually at least four (fed, state, county, city),
It's exactly the same here (except besides those, we also have the various EU entities "above", so I guess more complicated actually?), my Spanish and Catalan compatriots seem to handle that just fine.
I'm jealous! The EU in general seems much more livable, at least the parts I've visited. The US is a pretty gilded but otherwise relatively dysfunctional society.
In my experience, the local governments here most often use Facebook, not Twitter
Kinda hard to do since Twitter doesn't exist any more. There's a thing called X that is basically the same thing though. /s
Many are now using Wayland instead of X.
But https://twitter.com/ still returns 200.
`curl -v https://twitter.com` returns HTTP 302 for me, which is kind of funny. If the redirect was permanent, they'd use HTTP 301 (Moved Permanently) but instead they use HTTP 302 is amounts to "Moved Temporarily".
I wonder if there is still a chance it'll move back to Twitter so people can start to recognize it again.
I also wonder if this was an engineering troll.
They renamed Twitter? Why would they do that? Sounds like the kind of thing that a bored and stoned billionaire would do for the lulz