The European Union Digital Markets Act, coming into effect in May 2023, explicitly forbids such behavior. (If twitter is classified as a "gatekeeper".)
Example of the “don'ts” - Gatekeeper platforms may no longer:
- treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform
- prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms
The way Elon seems to like to take his chances, Twitter pulling out from the EU/EEA market might be a possibility. Personally I think that would be beneficial, as even more would switch to Mastodon in 2023. Even if I don't use social blogging websites myself, I think that would be a net win.
I’ve been thinking recently that Elon might actually have the hidden goal of attempting to get the US to pass legislation forbidding social media companies from doing this sort of thing.
I’ve never had the slightest illusion about Elon Musk or his principles. About the most I can say for him is he has said a few things I agree with over the years.
If that were his goal, he could gave done it for far less than $44B. how many dark money donations, Super PACs and think-tanks (left and right) could he have funded with 'only' $2B? Probably enough to get him an amendment in a must-pass bill with bipartisan support. For even less money, he could petition the state legislature in Texas or Florida to pass another Social Media law.
I wonder what amount of twitter revenue and users are in the EU?
Also I strongly suspect that mastadon would have a lot of trouble complying with European laws (except I think some have company size minimums that mastadon instances would likely not reach).
"She packed my bags last night pre-flight
Zero hour 9:00 a.m.
And I'm gonna be high
As a kite by then
...
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh, no, no, no
I'm a rocket man
Rocket man, burning out his fuse up here alone
Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them
If you did"
If someone follows me, that means they’ve affirmatively expressed interest in what I have to say. How is it “spam” for me to tell them how they can continue hearing from me?
He's saying such a rule from the EU could allow spam from the companies themselves, not that these posts from advocate users would be an instance of spam.
> He’s saying such a rule from the EU could allow spam from the companies themselves
The word “consumer” in the rule that gatekeeper platforms must not “prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms” has a meaning, and that meaning is, in this case, “Elon Musk is wrong”.
Odd use of 'gatekeeper' isn't it? Even if I would call this 'gatekeeping behaviour' (I don't think it is, the way that's usually used around here at least? Not to say that it isn't 'misbehaviour') surely the thing that's objected to really is gatekeeping by x platforms, where x is 'monopoly' or 'dominant' or something?
Twitter is a bit of a gatekeeper is it not? So many companies ran their customer service through there, it became one of the dominant customer service platforms (alongside Facebook). On top of this, many news platforms also relied heavily on Twitter to break and share news, same with journalists who used Twitter as their only form of communication effectively.
Twitter was positioning itself as a major gatekeeper of information, and so I do think the EU should be looking into this carefully in hopes of preventing it from happening again.
To be clear, I don't object to there being the regulation at all, I was just commenting on the word choice, which to me, and apparently vehemently not others, seemed unusual.
A correct use of "gatekeeper" as it always has been.
You might be more used to the more informal social media use of the word meaning busybodies that involve themselves unasked to police people's behaviors to their own arbitrary standards; this is not it.
By far the most prevalent use I see is Wiktionary's #3 'one who gatekeeps' > verb #5:
> (by extension, slang, Internet) To limit another party's participation in a collective identity or activity, usually due to undue pettiness, resentment, or overprotectiveness.
But in the (today) rarer, less metaphorical sense... It's not that either? What is Twitter guarding access to? It's not, we're talking about Twitter itself.
My view is that "gatekeeper" used to - and still does - mean someone or something with actual power over belonging to something, and by extension "gatekeeping" commonly means someone who doesn't have actual power but tries to exert social influence as if they decided who does and doesn't participate in or belong to a thing. I think the two meanings continue to coexist depending on context.
> My view is that "gatekeeper" used to - and still does - mean someone or something with actual power over belonging to something, and by extension "gatekeeping" commonly means someone who doesn't have actual power but tries to exert social influence as if they decided who does and doesn't participate in or belong to a thing.
From a straight up grammatical perspective, I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense, or really what you're trying to say. What you're saying "gatekeeper" means tracks just fine. But I'm getting thrown for a loop with "gatekeeping" because that's either a verb (e.g. "The dog is gatekeeping.") or an adjective (e.g. "The gatekeeping dog..."), but you're giving it a meaning that only works for a noun ("someone who doesn't have actual power but...").
Basically, I don't understand what you're trying to say, but what you're saying seems like something I'd like to understand.
As far as grammar goes, I think I was implying that "gatekeeper" does suggest the older meaning more, and "gatekeeping" the newer meaning. But I'm not sure if that's a rigid rule or why the pattern exists.
I think the term gatekeeper makes more sense if applied to companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft & Co, with their search engines, maps, app stores, operating systems, browsers ... all these are gateways to "the digital market". Twitter might be to small and comparatively niche to be classified as a gatekeeper. There does not seem to be an exact definition that I could find. But social networks as a category and companies like Meta/Facebook are listed as gatekeepers.
> There does not seem to be an exact definition that I could find.
From the regulation, Article 3:
1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;
(b) it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.
2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:
(a) as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;
(b) as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union, identified and calculated in accordance with the methodology and indicators set out in the Annex;
(c) as regards paragraph 1, point (c), where the thresholds in point (b) of this paragraph were met in each of the last three financial years.
Thanks for digging that out. That's a good expansion of what I meant by 'dominant platform' really, it's just to me, in what I see, that's not the way 'gatekeeper' is used (in the popular modern way, nor does it make sense at all in a metaphorical to historical/literal way). People seem to disagree :shrug:.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
Example of the “don'ts” - Gatekeeper platforms may no longer:
- treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform
- prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms