[renlo]

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?

[rsynnott]

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_.

[nvm0n2]

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.

[minerva23]

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.

[rsynnott]

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.

[Spivak]

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.

[nradov]

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.

[sergiosgc]

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.

[nradov]

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.

[shadowgovt]

> 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-...

[Zuider]

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

[consumer451]

> 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?

[nradov]

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.