This is a good approach in general, but I very much disagree in the case of X. Obvious misinformation is shown right on the front page, and not only since recent attacks on Israel. Elon Musk himself is regularly sharing false information, not to mention the army of blue checks.
As the saying goes: As a journalist, if one person says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s NOT your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and see which is the truth.
So instead of rushing out this “EU said this, X said that” kind of article article, I would expect an organisation like the BBC to find out what’s going on.
The misinformation part is obvious but EU is investigating whether handling of this misinformation is done correctly and final charges will likely leverage DSA which is untested. In the end it’ll probably be extremely complex legal case and I don’t expect non-specialized reporters to add their own judgment.
The investigation is specifically about whether X spreads disinformation in a way that is punishable under the DSA, but the headline makes it look like it’s unclear whether X spreads disinformation at all. So I think it’s at least somewhat misleading.
Yeah we can’t be punishing websites merely for having disinformation posted on them, because then malicious actors would target websites and post disinformation on them in order to get the website taken down. It has to be only when the website’s handling of disinformation submitted is wrong. However, Musk already landed himself in hot water by directly promoting a known disinformation sources from his personal account.
Good. But when do we drop the “alleged” part in these headlines?
It’s good reporting - innocent until proven guilty and avoids defamation lawsuits in the meantime.
This is a good approach in general, but I very much disagree in the case of X. Obvious misinformation is shown right on the front page, and not only since recent attacks on Israel. Elon Musk himself is regularly sharing false information, not to mention the army of blue checks.
As the saying goes: As a journalist, if one person says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s NOT your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and see which is the truth.
So instead of rushing out this “EU said this, X said that” kind of article article, I would expect an organisation like the BBC to find out what’s going on.
The misinformation part is obvious but EU is investigating whether handling of this misinformation is done correctly and final charges will likely leverage DSA which is untested. In the end it’ll probably be extremely complex legal case and I don’t expect non-specialized reporters to add their own judgment.
BBC could have titled this article better though.
Yes, that’s an accurate description, and I agree. The DSA is new and therefore untested, so it will certainly be a long legal process.
If it wasn’t alleged, no investigation would be necessary.
The investigation is specifically about whether X spreads disinformation in a way that is punishable under the DSA, but the headline makes it look like it’s unclear whether X spreads disinformation at all. So I think it’s at least somewhat misleading.
Disinformation on X is pretty much a given, as has been reported many times, see for example X, formerly Twitter, amplifies disinformation amid the Israel-Hamas conflict as reported by CNBC.
Yeah we can’t be punishing websites merely for having disinformation posted on them, because then malicious actors would target websites and post disinformation on them in order to get the website taken down. It has to be only when the website’s handling of disinformation submitted is wrong. However, Musk already landed himself in hot water by directly promoting a known disinformation sources from his personal account.