> An independent body which hears disputes from social media users in the EU says Meta virtually never replies when it raises cases of people who say they have been wrongly banned from their accounts.
Yup, "victim" of exactly that here. Had a restaurant with a Facebook + Instagram page, as bunch of people find new places that way apparently, maybe 20-30% of the people we talked to found us via those properties, so hard to just give up even if you disagree, unless you're in a really great location already, which we weren't.
At one point, our Instagram page was banned, no reason provided, and impossible to reach a human, the Facebook page continued working without issues. Must have reached out and "appealed" like 10 times, eventually we gave up and the page seems to remain banned today still.
> Had a restaurant with a Facebook + Instagram page
But this here is already a prior problem - you depend on these US companies in the first place.
The EU could easily make it free to have a homepage associated for no cost. That would be something. Everyone gets a homepage for free, say, one business per EU citizen. Why is the system screwing us over to depend on US companies here?
We had a website, that's besides the point. You want to be where people already are, which for American tourists, will be American social media. It's not a choice between "be on social media and survive, or don't", it's "reach the audience you're trying to reach or don't", not a matter of survival.
As long as you're using it as just another bit of marketing/advertising, it seems like a no brainer. It's those companies that only exist because FB/Insta/Twit/etc exist that are really using suspect business model. Sounds to me like you're using it as designed. GP is out of balance to me.
>The EU could easily make it free to have a homepage associated for no cost.
the benefit to the business is not that they have a homepage. its that facebook/instagram bring hundreds of thousands of eyes to the page that otherwise would not see it.
yes but it's also the other way around, no?
_businesses pages_ bring hundreds of thousands of eyes to _facebook/instagram_ that otherwise would not see FB/IG.
That won't change 20-30% of their customers using Facebook/Instagram to find them.
The only way I've seen around the impenetrable US social media network effects is to isolate your people either through restricting access or naturally occurring low bilingualism.
The western world speaks English online, so the latter is unlikely to happen and the former would be a final admission that our cultural values mean nothing in practice.
This was true in reality yes, but not via Google-the-search-engine but Google Maps actually, most website visits were from the link on our Google Maps listing, the rest was basically either from Facebook or Instagram, almost no search engine traffic.
> But this here is already a prior problem - you depend on these US companies in the first place.
Not really? The upstream problem is getting customers, and the concrete problem is that these humongous American advertising agencies are too big to care about customer services for their smallest clients.
Switching to a EU administrated advertising agency is not obviously better, because that's another big organisation but with even less ties to the local level. The one upside is that a EU level organisation can be legally compelled to fix problems, but even then don't expect it to happen quickly.
> Switching to a EU administrated advertising agency is not obviously better, because that's another big organisation but with even less ties to the local level.
How would an EU organization have less ties to EU businesses than a US corporation that has already demonstrated that it doesn’t care about small EU businesses?
I'm not convinced the healthcare side of the EU stops working while other issues are being discussed, though I believe the cookie consent banner department NEVER sleeps.
It doesn't stop working of course, but people who are already paying heroic percentages of their income to fund it are generally wary of new projects being added to the tab.
I'm not certain if it's due to the special brand of American self-reliance or if it's due to a higher efficiency of tax spending but, while no one likes paying taxes, in most places people can see the effects of their taxes and end up spending less when that spending is collectively managed than if everyone tried to do it themselves.
I don't know if you work in HR but if you compare Canada and US taxes Canadian taxes are clearly higher... but when you look at cost of hiring the multiplier companies pay to provide a given level of effective income to employees it is far lower in Canada. While the taxes we see are higher, the taxes the US invisibly foists on individuals end up adding up to a much larger number (as well as the US engaging extensively in employer-side taxation which "hides" the tax bill).
It wouldn't hurt, either, to tone down the hyperbole.
Do you have a source on EU residents paying a “heroic percentage” of their income?
Everytime I’ve gotten actual numbers from people the total tax burden has been roughly equivalent between the US and the EU, but people confuse the different buckets it comes from as the EU has taxes like VAT and the US will be split between federal,state,local,property,sales, etc
I think creating a social network to compete with the likes of FB is going to be a hard problem, especially with the insane network effects of existing social media. I won't pretend that the server farms will somehow be prohibitively expensive, but the marketing might be.
Especially since it might not work. Right now everyone (unfortunately) is on existing networks and if you're a business that's what matters.
The EU's attitude to American tech firms is weird. On the one hand, they have extrajudicial private entities they outsource censorship requests to ("trusted flaggers"), which the companies have to follow at the threat of massive fines and which therefore creates the incentive to ban quickly.
On the other hand, there is stuff like this where they created another arbitrary "voluntary" mechanism to punish the companies for banning too much. I think ultimately the EU just wants a set of rules to use as a pretense to levy fines on big tech.
I think that premise is wrong - there are many interest groups, and by luck/lobbying/reaching critical mass/... they manage to put one of their interests into a law.
The problem is that the EU politicians do not want the think about the problem. They want to outsource it and make someone else to pay it.
But there is no solution. Any censorship is always subjective.
Also trusted flaggers bans cannot be disputed easily. Meta rather just takes whatever trusted flaggers have flagged, real or not, and it is not their problem. It is a problem between the EU citizen and anonymous trusted flagged with no accountability.
The next step is of course corrupted trusted flaggers who can take down business pages, whatever, for a payment.
The EU fines are not enough to get the US tech companies to change, or even leave completely. But they are enough to continually fund the EU regulatory bureaucracy itself. So this arm of the government really only exists to preserve itself.
I would be interested to see how many EU government jobs the US tech fines are supporting. Maybe Meta or Google is indirectly the largest employer in Brussels?
Another way to read this is the tech companies are stupidly bankrolling the EU by not complying with the laws of the lands (EU states voluntarily enact their own implementations of EU directions in return for a slice). That’s far too good a cash cow to pass up. Keep it coming.
EU is an organization of bureaucrats. They want rules, first and foremost. Rules that they can lord over you and that justify their continued existence. What those rules are about is a secondary matter.
It's almost as though they want to be the government making the rules, rather than sitting back and letting the likes of META do whatever they want. The imperfect approach comes down to the reality of politics.
I think the censorship framing is quite manipulative. It is removal of unlawful content.
Is removing CSAM censorship? What about snuff?
If no, then where do you draw the line? Why can't our democratically elected governments decide what is and isn't lawful? Why should foreign Big Capital be allowed to decide instead?
Restricting the distribution of any material on content-based criteria by persons other than sender or intended receiver is censorship.
Whether it is desirable censorship or not is generally a separate issue from whether or not it is censorship, unless, for example, you have previously adopted a rule that the particular actor committing the censorship shall not engage in censorship at all, in which case they are, of course, inherently the same question. (Where this gets hairy is when one likes to pretend that one has such a rule for a particular actor, but actually really would prefer that actor to censor certain things, which sometimes occurs with modern liberal democratic regimes, and especially frequently occurs with a particular North American one which has what superficially looks like a very strong restriction in that area in its Constitution.)
>I think the censorship framing is quite manipulative. It is removal of unlawful content.
Yeah, that's called censorship. It's exactly the same thing everyone you accuse of censorship does. There is exactly zero difference beyond your support of the views/people being censored (and sometimes not even that).
>Is removing CSAM censorship? What about snuff?
Yes. Yes.
>If no, then where do you draw the line? Why can't our democratically elected governments decide what is and isn't lawful? Why should foreign Big Capital be allowed to decide instead?
Well in my country that line has been drawn. It's just recurring and persistently ignored by the state, the justice system, and private entities.
When a constitution says explicitly "no type or form of censorship is permitted", that's pretty clear what it means. You ignoring it doesn't make that line less clear.
Nice motte-and-bailey. Removing CSAM is good, therefore so is removing “we need to take back our country”:
@JudiciaryGOP has been investigating European censorship since the EU tried to silence President Trump last August. In February, we subpoenaed tech companies for their communications with foreign censors in Europe and around the world. Today, we’re releasing a report with preliminary findings about the EU’s censorship regime. The EU’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), requires platforms to censor so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech,” even when the content “is not illegal.” New documents obtained by the Committee show that European regulators distort these terms to require censorship of legitimate political discourse that is neither harmful nor illegal. In May, the EU hosted a DSA-focused “workshop” where platforms were asked to consider hypothetical “scenarios” involving hate speech online. Unlike other EU “workshops” with tech, the public was NOT allowed to watch this one. And the EU told the platforms to NOT share the “scenarios” with the public. What were they trying to hide? Turns out, the EU wanted to hide what it defines as “illegal hate speech” that must be censored: tweeting ordinary political rhetoric like “we need to take back our country.”
If removing CSAM is good, then there is clearly a line somewhere.
The only question is "who gets to draw it"?
Why should it be foreign oligarchs and not our own democratic representatives?
To do so, ironically, constitutes "taking back our country" from autocrats abroad.
The arrogance of the House GOP trying to tell our democracy what is and isn't harmful is grating. You're not our colonial administrators. Abide by our rules or get out.
No, it constitutes the taking of the country by the autocrats at home (or in Brussels). It is ridiculous to call them "democratic representatives" when they are trying to keep secret how they are censoring the people they rule, sorry, "represent".
It's also ridiculous to claim that censoring the very desire to reclaim one's country, is reclaiming one's country, by virtue of who is doing the secret censoring.
> Who do House Republicans think they are that they can tell our democracy what is and isn't harmful? Abide by our rules or get out.
As a European I am very grateful to the Republicans for exposing how my own supranational rulers are controlling me, something which, again, they tried to keep secret, while preaching about "democracy".
> The EU's attitude to American tech firms is weird.
At the core, what the difference is is how "free speech" is interpreted. In the US? Unless you literally fake-call "fire" or call for Luigi'ing someone, it's protected free speech, even if it's a bunch of Nazis holding tiki torches and showing the Hitler salute [1].
In Europe? We have been through 1933-1945. Almost every country in continental Europe was either occupied by Hitler's Germany or lorded over by one of his allies (e.g. Spain's Franco, Ante Pavelic in what would be Yugoslavia or Mussolini in Italy). An awful, awful lot of people died thanks to these regimes, and our collective learning from that history is to either ban such speech entirely or at the very least ostracize its followers. The Eastern Bloc countries who had been occupied by authoritarian pseudo Communism in the decades after WW2 added the Communist symbols (e.g. Red Star) for the same reason. Generally, we do not want a repeat of these eras.
Now with social media, we saw Americans (and people of other non European countries, but mostly Americans) openly post symbols we see as symbols of hate, we saw them call for a repeat of what happened between 1933 and the 1990s, and US platforms did barely anything against that. We tried the soft way as we almost always do, announced "hey we don't like that", platforms didn't get it under control (and some, like post-Musk Twitter, openly announced they DGAF)... and similarly to GDPR or USB-C, we acted.
As an EU citizen I am glad there's at least some overwatch and control over these companies. I don't trust them at all. In the US unregulated capitalism is fine: everything and his mother are for sale. Here, not so much.
Ironically if there is a single population that will immensely benefit from socialism, is the United States. Yet they are raised in fear of the very doctrine that would save them.
I know a person managing social media for an elected politician in Poland.
On the first day Meta banned the account for impersonation. Protest was closed automatically within a hour with the usual "sorry you aint happy with this but the ban stands" response.
There was no way to contact a human about this... unless you buy meta premium support or whatever that is called. That will give you a human handler to contact!
This person asked for a paper work to verify. Next day after receiving the paper work, account was unbanned. For 15 minutes. It was then banned automatically for impersonation.
At this point the handler suggested not naming the account after politician but instead making it "Fans of the Jane Doe " page or something like that.
My understanding is that this was then escalated to one of ministries who did reach out Meta in Poland with request for explanations, after which account was unbanned and flagged as verified by Meta to exclude it from future automatic bans.
except you dont' get a "human" when you buy "premium support", you get a chatbot with elevated access. source: ex-colleague who use to work at CSE team for IG and Whatsapp.
> It was then banned automatically for impersonation.
Sorry, but if it wouldn't have been banned then there would be 1000x legitimately looking fake BOT accounts impersonating every politician in Europe, which IMHO is a lot worse considering the disinformation campaigns of trolls and foreign adversaries, so of course Meta would err on the side of caution here and assume every account of a politician is 99,9999% gonna be a bot and just ban it instantly.
The only correct solution is META having human support staff on call for such situations which i thought they did in Dublin, at least last time I checked ~8 or so years ago.
When you have a business and you're trying to reach people, social media works surprisingly well, as long as you don't get banned for arbitrary reasons.
I'm no suggesting Ads are bad, I'm suggesting Meta is.
Without Meta - people would spend their time doing other things - and your ad-volume in those other areas of attention would increase.
Also - Meta is grabbing your profits.
They have more market power than you - they force you to compete for attention on their platform, they skim all the surplus.
Advertising is ruthlessly inefficient, and the way Google/Meta do it is much worse.
1) targeting / relevance is poor
2) ads are poorly designed with bad messaging
3) powerful value chain actors (Meta, Google, YouTube) disintermediate and consume all of the value of a given activity, which is probably not an efficient distribution of power.
I searched for 'Midjourney' and the first placement says 'Midjourney' right on the title of the link and then on the landing page it says 'Midjorney' - alas, that was not my 'Midjourney' account from 6 months ago
In a weakened state of mind, just trying to get some 'other thing done' I fell down the path of 'legal and supported deception'.
All of that is gigantic waste - it's a 'lose-lose' war over attention like nations fighting over scarce resources.
And because it generates money it 'looks like' economic productivity, in the way that 'massive healthcare expenditures' and even 'wartime economy' seem positive for the GDP but they might be signs of civic degradation.
So I'm still not entirely clear what you want here, are you saying "Ban every company like Meta" or specifically "Ban Meta"? Or does what you say apply equally to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, Bluesky and every other public social media network? Or some are worse than others?
> All of that is gigantic waste - it's a 'lose-lose' war over attention like nations fighting over scarce resources.
Maybe for others, for us it was quite literally "When we put photos of our food, others who didn't know about our restaurant will see it, and some of those come to our restaurant", not more or less than that, no "wars about attention" or what not, just "look at pretty photo, come eat if you want".
I understand and agree there is a larger conversation to be had about all of this too, I'm just failing to see how it's related to Meta banning our account and ultimately not letting us get access to the account again, as we couldn't talk with a human at Meta.
Why are you assuming GP is saying literally anything other than "Ban Meta"? It's maybe a dubious response, but there's no reason to conflate social media with advertising via websites other than to try to create false cover for Meta.
I guess I was assuming GP was making a larger statement than literally just "Ban Meta" as that'd be oddly specific, they must be talking about "social media" at large, or the very least "social media like Facebook does it", at least that's my charitable take on what they wrote, I might have misassumed indeed.
WhatsApp is totally fine. Also, if it were gone, it would immediately be displaced by something else.
The features of 'WhatsApp' should be a standard or de facto standard, that comes with every plan globally.
WhatsApp only exists because Carrier incumbents are unwieldy and stupid - I worked with them for years, they're incapable of an ounce of innovation, and tried to control the entire mobile web.
If you're old enough, you'll might recall 10 cent WAP pages.
They fought desperately to control every inch, the iPhone broke their control, it would have been slow moving without Jobs breaking their hold, now Apple has a similar control, ableit much more capable.
Buying it doesn't necessarily have to mean becoming owner of the physical thing. You could buy the EU by spending enough money with the politicians that you essentially get to do whatever you wanted as if you owned the physical thing without actually having the burden of ownership.
> You could buy the EU by spending enough money with the politicians
Alright, so given this is your belief, why wouldn't you think that this has already been done, if it's possible? No one felt like buying the EU until in the future? Or maybe, it might actually be harder than you think?
Which again makes sense, the US entire philosophy is "Everything is for sale, if you can afford it, you can buy it", so of course that's what happens now.
However, laws, politics and more is slightly different in the EU and Europe, hence you can't just wave money and get your wave, unlike the US currently.
Normally I'd go - more fines against Meta are great. So, no problem with that.
But ...
This whole "hate speech" is nothing but censorship. I understand that these greedy US giant corporations ruin a lot and abuse the heck out of everyone, but the EU is also incredibly incompetent here. What the heck is even "hate" speech? We are forbidden from criticism? The USA has the freedom of speech amendment. What's the EU solution here - arbitrary censorship? I totally disagree with that notion, and whether it is Meta or anyone else, this is a principle question. The EU should use all that money to invest into more important things than this fakeroy "hate" speech.
The literal forum we are communicating on will ban you for hate speech. I’ve been banned on multiple social media cites for quoting the current president because he has full free speech and we do not.
Pretending that hate speech isn’t a known term is being actively ignorant even though there can be real arguments about where the line is drawn.
If you think calling black footballers monkeys isn't hate speech, there is no explaining anything to you about this topic.
Meanwhile if you're even slightly dickish to one of these people you will get immediately warned or shadowbanned. Meanwhile the post, get notified 9 months later that they reviewed it and found it doesn't violate their terms of service.
Honestly Meta is just plain stupid. These formats are an informal way to avoid strong regulation but solve problems and used in many settings of govermental regulation as a first try.
Snubbing them will increase the chance of hard regulation.
I guess Zucki, Meta and SV folks (proofed on HN itself) just drunk too much "EU is declining because of regulation" and it will end like Lightning and Apple.
Stupid how? There's nothing regulation-worthy about banning users who aren't in some legally binding contract that'd make the action a breach of terms.
Asia will ignore US deals, especially on social media. Look at Australia are even more hawkish than EU.
Japan and South Korea are more culturally close to China when it comes to social harmony and the will probably follow suit when it comes to be strict on social media even if they allow US media it will be by much stricter rules than US.
Japan is also already in the world's largest free trade agreement with the EU[0] and in a joint development program for a next generation fighter plane with Italy and the UK[1].
The US has squandered a massive amount of goodwill since the first Trump presidency.
Meta on Facebook: posts about contraception, HIV or family planning will get you banned. Posting photos of drowned migrants on Italian beaches with hateful messages? That’s cool, bro free speech.
There's more and worse. A friend has been making a point of sending me Instagram Reels of OnlyFans performers showing their genitals briefly without getting banned or without the reels being removed. Some of those stay up for months.
Don't judge, the friend is interested in the way they find interesting solutions to bypass censorship, more than the content. Or so he says. And LOL, no, I'm not "the friend".
This to say, that they are absolutely not in control of their platforms, except for heavily political content, and speech-related content.
Flash a vulva quickly enough by using smart lighting, and they won't catch it. I guess we'll still have that in our dystopian future.
Zuckerberg social medias are but a cancer to society. That has become fundamentally clear. They need to be so heavily regulated that they become unrecognizable, or they should be destroyed with all means possible (legally, of course).
This is actually true? Facebook bans users who talk about contraception and HIV?
I don't use Facebook so no idea if this is true or not personally, but ChatGPT seems to think this isn't true and that if it does happen it's probably a mistake?
It's not 'whataboutism' when you're impugning their authority while seemingly have none of your own... or, in the alternative, even if it is, it's quite valid in this instance.
Respectfully, do a Google search and not a ChatGPT one. Facebook's recent nonsense is fairly well documented. (They have also gone back and forth on this a few times)
Meta is a garbage company. An absolutely fetid cancer on humanity that offers zero good and all bad.
Most companies have good and bad. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Valve, and so on. They have the things that should be criticized, but have some good they bring to the world. Meta -- just a malignant, cancerous venue for stupidity. An organization that exists on the backs of scammers, cons, hate, disinformation, and so on. Like use Instagram for a day and it's just amazing that this hive of villainy and scum hasn't been banned every country worldwide but the one where the plutocrats run the country.
Unless a user is paying money or otherwise in a legally binding contract that would be breached by a ban, I see no reason why a company shouldn't be able to ban them even on a whim. Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.
This might feel like a reasonable take in isolation, but if you take it in context of today's society, and how everything actually works, it's not reasonable or realistic. Nor is it empathetic in any way.
These social media companies have created an environment where they are the dominant, near-exclusive, medium for communication in our digital age. If you are running a consumer-facing business in 2026 you *must* be on these platforms.
Given that these companies have actively pursued these positions they now hold, do you not feel they have a responsibility to be fair, reliable and trustworthy? That they have some obligation to their users, paying or not. They are choosing to offer the service for free, and they do make money on you regardless.
Losing your business accounts on Meta or Tiktok or Youtube can have catastrophic real-world consequences. And mistakes happen all the time, so you can't realistically assume every ban or cancellation is justified or correct.
In any case it's the users who built these companies by using their platform. It's users who need to rally and migrate away in solidarity with those being banned or whatever it may be. I'd say expecting companies to not do whatever they consider is in their best interest is what's not reasonable nor realistic. A company exists to make money; if banning certain users advances that mandate then it's free and expected to. Again, unless there's some legal basis to counteract that decision.
It’s hard to wrap up the past couple decades of tech building out their utility-like selves, showing how it breaks a heuristic of “it’s their business-just don’t use it”, so I’m impressed how well you’ve done it.
> do you not feel they have a responsibility to be fair, reliable and trustworthy?
What an odd question. Of course not. You've built your business on their platform and you've (for lots of non-specific, general "you"'s) decided to cede your business to their whims. Plenty of businesses exist just fine with no social media presence and plenty of people are not too brain-rotted to find them.
But more to the point, I don't feel Meta has any responsibility to anyone. I feel the government in my country has a responsibility to regulate them and to levy devastating and potentially existential fines if they break those regulations. It's absurd to think these companies have any obligation to you (you in general, not you specifically) just because you can't figure out how to function without them.
> Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.
Businesses can lose a lot traffic by not being present on Facebook and Instagram, so being unjustifiably banned is doing measurable financial harm in many cases.
Even as an individual it can be a huge pain to not have Facebook. The local individual sales market (e.g. classified ads) is dominated by Facebook Marketplace now, for example, and not having access to that market makes it difficult to sell things.
Meta has a responsibility to the community because of their position as the de facto platform for many activities. They've even intentionally positioned themselves to dominate. Having laws requiring them to act responsibly is totally justifiable.
Regulatory laws can always be made of course, but it's unrealistic to expect that Meta, or any other company, will do any more than is required to ensure they're turning a profit.
Then there's no reason why a government shouldn't regulate these companies, and use sanctions of all kinds - including fines, and the potential for an outright ban - to enforce those regulations.
From what I understand nothing in the EU regulation prevents a company from arbitrarily banning people. You can read it in full here: https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act.... It basically just establishes how the dispute should be handled between the parties
Enough of the real world interfaces with online services that arbitrary bans cause actual damages, more harm than banning an annoying player from your obscure MUD.
Disabled passengers who take a long time to load into rideshare vehicles are an example here where we want oversight on platform bans. Getting banned from both Uber & Lyft in the US with no recourse, even no human review, can disenfranchise.
i would support this if local/state/provincial/federal governments were not allowed to post exclusively on social media. other companies should also not be allowed to use social media as their only method of customer support.
Then there should be a law that requires the platform to interoperate with independent clients. You can't have both. The social network is a common good. If you want to benefit from it, then you need to treat people fairly.
Not if it's managed by a company, in which case it's a means to turn a profit. A common good needs to be managed by the community to which it's providing said good, or by an entity that's legally bound to ensure it remains "good" for the community.
> An independent body which hears disputes from social media users in the EU says Meta virtually never replies when it raises cases of people who say they have been wrongly banned from their accounts.
Yup, "victim" of exactly that here. Had a restaurant with a Facebook + Instagram page, as bunch of people find new places that way apparently, maybe 20-30% of the people we talked to found us via those properties, so hard to just give up even if you disagree, unless you're in a really great location already, which we weren't.
At one point, our Instagram page was banned, no reason provided, and impossible to reach a human, the Facebook page continued working without issues. Must have reached out and "appealed" like 10 times, eventually we gave up and the page seems to remain banned today still.
> Had a restaurant with a Facebook + Instagram page
But this here is already a prior problem - you depend on these US companies in the first place.
The EU could easily make it free to have a homepage associated for no cost. That would be something. Everyone gets a homepage for free, say, one business per EU citizen. Why is the system screwing us over to depend on US companies here?
We had a website, that's besides the point. You want to be where people already are, which for American tourists, will be American social media. It's not a choice between "be on social media and survive, or don't", it's "reach the audience you're trying to reach or don't", not a matter of survival.
As long as you're using it as just another bit of marketing/advertising, it seems like a no brainer. It's those companies that only exist because FB/Insta/Twit/etc exist that are really using suspect business model. Sounds to me like you're using it as designed. GP is out of balance to me.
>The EU could easily make it free to have a homepage associated for no cost.
the benefit to the business is not that they have a homepage. its that facebook/instagram bring hundreds of thousands of eyes to the page that otherwise would not see it.
yes but it's also the other way around, no? _businesses pages_ bring hundreds of thousands of eyes to _facebook/instagram_ that otherwise would not see FB/IG.
That won't change 20-30% of their customers using Facebook/Instagram to find them.
The only way I've seen around the impenetrable US social media network effects is to isolate your people either through restricting access or naturally occurring low bilingualism.
The western world speaks English online, so the latter is unlikely to happen and the former would be a final admission that our cultural values mean nothing in practice.
the website would still depend on google to be found by most people.
This was true in reality yes, but not via Google-the-search-engine but Google Maps actually, most website visits were from the link on our Google Maps listing, the rest was basically either from Facebook or Instagram, almost no search engine traffic.
> But this here is already a prior problem - you depend on these US companies in the first place.
Not really? The upstream problem is getting customers, and the concrete problem is that these humongous American advertising agencies are too big to care about customer services for their smallest clients.
Switching to a EU administrated advertising agency is not obviously better, because that's another big organisation but with even less ties to the local level. The one upside is that a EU level organisation can be legally compelled to fix problems, but even then don't expect it to happen quickly.
> Switching to a EU administrated advertising agency is not obviously better, because that's another big organisation but with even less ties to the local level.
How would an EU organization have less ties to EU businesses than a US corporation that has already demonstrated that it doesn’t care about small EU businesses?
Do people in the EU want to see their tax money used for that purpose rather than other far more pressing needs such as healthcare? I really doubt it.
I'm not convinced the healthcare side of the EU stops working while other issues are being discussed, though I believe the cookie consent banner department NEVER sleeps.
It doesn't stop working of course, but people who are already paying heroic percentages of their income to fund it are generally wary of new projects being added to the tab.
I'm not certain if it's due to the special brand of American self-reliance or if it's due to a higher efficiency of tax spending but, while no one likes paying taxes, in most places people can see the effects of their taxes and end up spending less when that spending is collectively managed than if everyone tried to do it themselves.
I don't know if you work in HR but if you compare Canada and US taxes Canadian taxes are clearly higher... but when you look at cost of hiring the multiplier companies pay to provide a given level of effective income to employees it is far lower in Canada. While the taxes we see are higher, the taxes the US invisibly foists on individuals end up adding up to a much larger number (as well as the US engaging extensively in employer-side taxation which "hides" the tax bill).
It wouldn't hurt, either, to tone down the hyperbole.
Do you have a source on EU residents paying a “heroic percentage” of their income?
Everytime I’ve gotten actual numbers from people the total tax burden has been roughly equivalent between the US and the EU, but people confuse the different buckets it comes from as the EU has taxes like VAT and the US will be split between federal,state,local,property,sales, etc
... How much tax money do you think it would actually take? I think this is a false choice.
(Not that I think it's a good suggestion, but this is a bad reason not to do it).
I think creating a social network to compete with the likes of FB is going to be a hard problem, especially with the insane network effects of existing social media. I won't pretend that the server farms will somehow be prohibitively expensive, but the marketing might be.
Especially since it might not work. Right now everyone (unfortunately) is on existing networks and if you're a business that's what matters.
The EU's attitude to American tech firms is weird. On the one hand, they have extrajudicial private entities they outsource censorship requests to ("trusted flaggers"), which the companies have to follow at the threat of massive fines and which therefore creates the incentive to ban quickly.
On the other hand, there is stuff like this where they created another arbitrary "voluntary" mechanism to punish the companies for banning too much. I think ultimately the EU just wants a set of rules to use as a pretense to levy fines on big tech.
You assume that the EU acts in a coherent manner.
I think that premise is wrong - there are many interest groups, and by luck/lobbying/reaching critical mass/... they manage to put one of their interests into a law.
EU has different things going on though. Some good regulation, some bad
The problem is that the EU politicians do not want the think about the problem. They want to outsource it and make someone else to pay it.
But there is no solution. Any censorship is always subjective.
Also trusted flaggers bans cannot be disputed easily. Meta rather just takes whatever trusted flaggers have flagged, real or not, and it is not their problem. It is a problem between the EU citizen and anonymous trusted flagged with no accountability.
The next step is of course corrupted trusted flaggers who can take down business pages, whatever, for a payment.
There are no fines at all in this story.
The EU fines are not enough to get the US tech companies to change, or even leave completely. But they are enough to continually fund the EU regulatory bureaucracy itself. So this arm of the government really only exists to preserve itself.
I would be interested to see how many EU government jobs the US tech fines are supporting. Maybe Meta or Google is indirectly the largest employer in Brussels?
Another way to read this is the tech companies are stupidly bankrolling the EU by not complying with the laws of the lands (EU states voluntarily enact their own implementations of EU directions in return for a slice). That’s far too good a cash cow to pass up. Keep it coming.
There are no fines, this is about having recourse when big tech randomly bans you. Which you will remember, is a very common outcry on this very page.
This is just an uninformed EU rant.
EU is an organization of bureaucrats. They want rules, first and foremost. Rules that they can lord over you and that justify their continued existence. What those rules are about is a secondary matter.
It's almost as though they want to be the government making the rules, rather than sitting back and letting the likes of META do whatever they want. The imperfect approach comes down to the reality of politics.
I think the censorship framing is quite manipulative. It is removal of unlawful content.
Is removing CSAM censorship? What about snuff?
If no, then where do you draw the line? Why can't our democratically elected governments decide what is and isn't lawful? Why should foreign Big Capital be allowed to decide instead?
Restricting the distribution of any material on content-based criteria by persons other than sender or intended receiver is censorship.
Whether it is desirable censorship or not is generally a separate issue from whether or not it is censorship, unless, for example, you have previously adopted a rule that the particular actor committing the censorship shall not engage in censorship at all, in which case they are, of course, inherently the same question. (Where this gets hairy is when one likes to pretend that one has such a rule for a particular actor, but actually really would prefer that actor to censor certain things, which sometimes occurs with modern liberal democratic regimes, and especially frequently occurs with a particular North American one which has what superficially looks like a very strong restriction in that area in its Constitution.)
>I think the censorship framing is quite manipulative. It is removal of unlawful content.
Yeah, that's called censorship. It's exactly the same thing everyone you accuse of censorship does. There is exactly zero difference beyond your support of the views/people being censored (and sometimes not even that).
>Is removing CSAM censorship? What about snuff?
Yes. Yes.
>If no, then where do you draw the line? Why can't our democratically elected governments decide what is and isn't lawful? Why should foreign Big Capital be allowed to decide instead?
Well in my country that line has been drawn. It's just recurring and persistently ignored by the state, the justice system, and private entities.
When a constitution says explicitly "no type or form of censorship is permitted", that's pretty clear what it means. You ignoring it doesn't make that line less clear.
Nice motte-and-bailey. Removing CSAM is good, therefore so is removing “we need to take back our country”:
@JudiciaryGOP has been investigating European censorship since the EU tried to silence President Trump last August. In February, we subpoenaed tech companies for their communications with foreign censors in Europe and around the world. Today, we’re releasing a report with preliminary findings about the EU’s censorship regime. The EU’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), requires platforms to censor so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech,” even when the content “is not illegal.” New documents obtained by the Committee show that European regulators distort these terms to require censorship of legitimate political discourse that is neither harmful nor illegal. In May, the EU hosted a DSA-focused “workshop” where platforms were asked to consider hypothetical “scenarios” involving hate speech online. Unlike other EU “workshops” with tech, the public was NOT allowed to watch this one. And the EU told the platforms to NOT share the “scenarios” with the public. What were they trying to hide? Turns out, the EU wanted to hide what it defines as “illegal hate speech” that must be censored: tweeting ordinary political rhetoric like “we need to take back our country.”
https://x.com/jim_jordan/status/1948730617803296910
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
If removing CSAM is good, then there is clearly a line somewhere.
The only question is "who gets to draw it"?
Why should it be foreign oligarchs and not our own democratic representatives?
To do so, ironically, constitutes "taking back our country" from autocrats abroad.
The arrogance of the House GOP trying to tell our democracy what is and isn't harmful is grating. You're not our colonial administrators. Abide by our rules or get out.
No, it constitutes the taking of the country by the autocrats at home (or in Brussels). It is ridiculous to call them "democratic representatives" when they are trying to keep secret how they are censoring the people they rule, sorry, "represent".
It's also ridiculous to claim that censoring the very desire to reclaim one's country, is reclaiming one's country, by virtue of who is doing the secret censoring.
> Who do House Republicans think they are that they can tell our democracy what is and isn't harmful? Abide by our rules or get out.
As a European I am very grateful to the Republicans for exposing how my own supranational rulers are controlling me, something which, again, they tried to keep secret, while preaching about "democracy".
> The EU's attitude to American tech firms is weird.
At the core, what the difference is is how "free speech" is interpreted. In the US? Unless you literally fake-call "fire" or call for Luigi'ing someone, it's protected free speech, even if it's a bunch of Nazis holding tiki torches and showing the Hitler salute [1].
In Europe? We have been through 1933-1945. Almost every country in continental Europe was either occupied by Hitler's Germany or lorded over by one of his allies (e.g. Spain's Franco, Ante Pavelic in what would be Yugoslavia or Mussolini in Italy). An awful, awful lot of people died thanks to these regimes, and our collective learning from that history is to either ban such speech entirely or at the very least ostracize its followers. The Eastern Bloc countries who had been occupied by authoritarian pseudo Communism in the decades after WW2 added the Communist symbols (e.g. Red Star) for the same reason. Generally, we do not want a repeat of these eras.
Now with social media, we saw Americans (and people of other non European countries, but mostly Americans) openly post symbols we see as symbols of hate, we saw them call for a repeat of what happened between 1933 and the 1990s, and US platforms did barely anything against that. We tried the soft way as we almost always do, announced "hey we don't like that", platforms didn't get it under control (and some, like post-Musk Twitter, openly announced they DGAF)... and similarly to GDPR or USB-C, we acted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
As an EU citizen I am glad there's at least some overwatch and control over these companies. I don't trust them at all. In the US unregulated capitalism is fine: everything and his mother are for sale. Here, not so much.
Ironically if there is a single population that will immensely benefit from socialism, is the United States. Yet they are raised in fear of the very doctrine that would save them.
I know a person managing social media for an elected politician in Poland.
On the first day Meta banned the account for impersonation. Protest was closed automatically within a hour with the usual "sorry you aint happy with this but the ban stands" response.
There was no way to contact a human about this... unless you buy meta premium support or whatever that is called. That will give you a human handler to contact!
This person asked for a paper work to verify. Next day after receiving the paper work, account was unbanned. For 15 minutes. It was then banned automatically for impersonation.
At this point the handler suggested not naming the account after politician but instead making it "Fans of the Jane Doe " page or something like that.
My understanding is that this was then escalated to one of ministries who did reach out Meta in Poland with request for explanations, after which account was unbanned and flagged as verified by Meta to exclude it from future automatic bans.
except you dont' get a "human" when you buy "premium support", you get a chatbot with elevated access. source: ex-colleague who use to work at CSE team for IG and Whatsapp.
> It was then banned automatically for impersonation.
Sorry, but if it wouldn't have been banned then there would be 1000x legitimately looking fake BOT accounts impersonating every politician in Europe, which IMHO is a lot worse considering the disinformation campaigns of trolls and foreign adversaries, so of course Meta would err on the side of caution here and assume every account of a politician is 99,9999% gonna be a bot and just ban it instantly.
The only correct solution is META having human support staff on call for such situations which i thought they did in Dublin, at least last time I checked ~8 or so years ago.
Toothless regulation fails to yield meaningful change - shocker.
The EU should ban his yacht from being serviced in the EU.
https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht/launchpad/location/#TRPL...
Careful, we've seen with Russian oligarchs they really don't like it when you mess with their boats.
I don't know if the regulations are reasonable (often there is government overreach) but I don't mind if they were just banned outright.
I don't think Meta crates economic civic value.
The time spent away from Meta would be better used for almost any other purpose.
Feels 'authoritarian' but the same reason FB/IN is bad for teens is the same reason it's bad for regular people.
I mean, obviously we can't go around banning companies, but still ... it would be good.
When you have a business and you're trying to reach people, social media works surprisingly well, as long as you don't get banned for arbitrary reasons.
It would be replaced by other avenues.
'Because Advertising' has to be the worst reason imaginable to keep a system in place.
But how would these "other avenues" be legal if your hypothetical scenario makes the "previous avenues" illegal?
I'm no suggesting Ads are bad, I'm suggesting Meta is.
Without Meta - people would spend their time doing other things - and your ad-volume in those other areas of attention would increase.
Also - Meta is grabbing your profits.
They have more market power than you - they force you to compete for attention on their platform, they skim all the surplus.
Advertising is ruthlessly inefficient, and the way Google/Meta do it is much worse.
1) targeting / relevance is poor 2) ads are poorly designed with bad messaging 3) powerful value chain actors (Meta, Google, YouTube) disintermediate and consume all of the value of a given activity, which is probably not an efficient distribution of power.
I searched for 'Midjourney' and the first placement says 'Midjourney' right on the title of the link and then on the landing page it says 'Midjorney' - alas, that was not my 'Midjourney' account from 6 months ago
In a weakened state of mind, just trying to get some 'other thing done' I fell down the path of 'legal and supported deception'.
All of that is gigantic waste - it's a 'lose-lose' war over attention like nations fighting over scarce resources.
And because it generates money it 'looks like' economic productivity, in the way that 'massive healthcare expenditures' and even 'wartime economy' seem positive for the GDP but they might be signs of civic degradation.
So I'm still not entirely clear what you want here, are you saying "Ban every company like Meta" or specifically "Ban Meta"? Or does what you say apply equally to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, Bluesky and every other public social media network? Or some are worse than others?
> All of that is gigantic waste - it's a 'lose-lose' war over attention like nations fighting over scarce resources.
Maybe for others, for us it was quite literally "When we put photos of our food, others who didn't know about our restaurant will see it, and some of those come to our restaurant", not more or less than that, no "wars about attention" or what not, just "look at pretty photo, come eat if you want".
I understand and agree there is a larger conversation to be had about all of this too, I'm just failing to see how it's related to Meta banning our account and ultimately not letting us get access to the account again, as we couldn't talk with a human at Meta.
Why are you assuming GP is saying literally anything other than "Ban Meta"? It's maybe a dubious response, but there's no reason to conflate social media with advertising via websites other than to try to create false cover for Meta.
I guess I was assuming GP was making a larger statement than literally just "Ban Meta" as that'd be oddly specific, they must be talking about "social media" at large, or the very least "social media like Facebook does it", at least that's my charitable take on what they wrote, I might have misassumed indeed.
For better or worse, several economies would currently come to a screeching halt if WhatsApp were to be banned.
WhatsApp is totally fine. Also, if it were gone, it would immediately be displaced by something else.
The features of 'WhatsApp' should be a standard or de facto standard, that comes with every plan globally.
WhatsApp only exists because Carrier incumbents are unwieldy and stupid - I worked with them for years, they're incapable of an ounce of innovation, and tried to control the entire mobile web.
If you're old enough, you'll might recall 10 cent WAP pages.
They fought desperately to control every inch, the iPhone broke their control, it would have been slow moving without Jobs breaking their hold, now Apple has a similar control, ableit much more capable.
They would not.
Plenty of options for chat apps where your account is essentially your phone number. People would quickly organize around one of the options.
I didn't say it could never restart. Obviously people will find an alternative, but I believe the disruption would be substantial.
At this point, meta could buy the EU.
Everything is absolutely for sale, if we did things The American Way but luckily we aren't, so good luck buying it :)
Buying it doesn't necessarily have to mean becoming owner of the physical thing. You could buy the EU by spending enough money with the politicians that you essentially get to do whatever you wanted as if you owned the physical thing without actually having the burden of ownership.
> You could buy the EU by spending enough money with the politicians
Alright, so given this is your belief, why wouldn't you think that this has already been done, if it's possible? No one felt like buying the EU until in the future? Or maybe, it might actually be harder than you think?
Currently, they are focused on owning the US. You'll see they are well on their way. The eye of Sauron hasn't been focused on the EU just yet.
Which again makes sense, the US entire philosophy is "Everything is for sale, if you can afford it, you can buy it", so of course that's what happens now.
However, laws, politics and more is slightly different in the EU and Europe, hence you can't just wave money and get your wave, unlike the US currently.
Normally I'd go - more fines against Meta are great. So, no problem with that.
But ...
This whole "hate speech" is nothing but censorship. I understand that these greedy US giant corporations ruin a lot and abuse the heck out of everyone, but the EU is also incredibly incompetent here. What the heck is even "hate" speech? We are forbidden from criticism? The USA has the freedom of speech amendment. What's the EU solution here - arbitrary censorship? I totally disagree with that notion, and whether it is Meta or anyone else, this is a principle question. The EU should use all that money to invest into more important things than this fakeroy "hate" speech.
hate speech in the EU is "incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin"[0].
You should be able to see criticism is fine, while calling people "stupid monkeys" is not.
But this isn't even about the EU's definition: Facebook & co have their own definition of hate speech, and they are not holding it up.
[0] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/ju...
The literal forum we are communicating on will ban you for hate speech. I’ve been banned on multiple social media cites for quoting the current president because he has full free speech and we do not.
Pretending that hate speech isn’t a known term is being actively ignorant even though there can be real arguments about where the line is drawn.
If you think calling black footballers monkeys isn't hate speech, there is no explaining anything to you about this topic.
Meanwhile if you're even slightly dickish to one of these people you will get immediately warned or shadowbanned. Meanwhile the post, get notified 9 months later that they reviewed it and found it doesn't violate their terms of service.
Fuck Zuckerberg, fuck its ilk of careless evil billionaires.
Honestly Meta is just plain stupid. These formats are an informal way to avoid strong regulation but solve problems and used in many settings of govermental regulation as a first try. Snubbing them will increase the chance of hard regulation.
I guess Zucki, Meta and SV folks (proofed on HN itself) just drunk too much "EU is declining because of regulation" and it will end like Lightning and Apple.
Stupid how? There's nothing regulation-worthy about banning users who aren't in some legally binding contract that'd make the action a breach of terms.
You can't use Meta without agreeing to "some legally binding contract."
The US is moving rapidly away from EU towards Asia. EU acts like they are driving this.
Asia will ignore US deals, especially on social media. Look at Australia are even more hawkish than EU. Japan and South Korea are more culturally close to China when it comes to social harmony and the will probably follow suit when it comes to be strict on social media even if they allow US media it will be by much stricter rules than US.
are you sure? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8p61v7l68o
https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/defense/japan-eyes-european...
Japan is also already in the world's largest free trade agreement with the EU[0] and in a joint development program for a next generation fighter plane with Italy and the UK[1].
The US has squandered a massive amount of goodwill since the first Trump presidency.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93European_Union_C...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Air_Programme
Meta on Facebook: posts about contraception, HIV or family planning will get you banned. Posting photos of drowned migrants on Italian beaches with hateful messages? That’s cool, bro free speech.
That's about right. Instagram is the worst.
"We won't remove this because it doesn't violate our content policy - just block the user if you don't like it".
Yeah just seen someone's head cut off with a machete. Not even joking. That'll stay with me forever.
There's more and worse. A friend has been making a point of sending me Instagram Reels of OnlyFans performers showing their genitals briefly without getting banned or without the reels being removed. Some of those stay up for months.
Don't judge, the friend is interested in the way they find interesting solutions to bypass censorship, more than the content. Or so he says. And LOL, no, I'm not "the friend".
This to say, that they are absolutely not in control of their platforms, except for heavily political content, and speech-related content. Flash a vulva quickly enough by using smart lighting, and they won't catch it. I guess we'll still have that in our dystopian future.
Zuckerberg social medias are but a cancer to society. That has become fundamentally clear. They need to be so heavily regulated that they become unrecognizable, or they should be destroyed with all means possible (legally, of course).
This is actually true? Facebook bans users who talk about contraception and HIV?
I don't use Facebook so no idea if this is true or not personally, but ChatGPT seems to think this isn't true and that if it does happen it's probably a mistake?
> ChatGPT seems to think this isn't true
Please don't do this.
Quote an authoritative source, not some AI bot known for ~hallucinating~ bullshitting.
This goes double when dealing with such an emotive subject.
gpt 5.5 thinking is more reliable than the median internet commenter
Then quote the source gpt 5.5 gives you
Yes, but one wouldn't quote these as if they were trusted sources either.
>Quote an authoritative source
What authoritative source did the parent post for their assertion?
'Whataboutism' isn't a valid criticism of my post.
It's not 'whataboutism' when you're impugning their authority while seemingly have none of your own... or, in the alternative, even if it is, it's quite valid in this instance.
Respectfully, do a Google search and not a ChatGPT one. Facebook's recent nonsense is fairly well documented. (They have also gone back and forth on this a few times)
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/dec/11/m...
I assume they're talking about https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/dec/11/m...
Meta is a garbage company. An absolutely fetid cancer on humanity that offers zero good and all bad.
Most companies have good and bad. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Valve, and so on. They have the things that should be criticized, but have some good they bring to the world. Meta -- just a malignant, cancerous venue for stupidity. An organization that exists on the backs of scammers, cons, hate, disinformation, and so on. Like use Instagram for a day and it's just amazing that this hive of villainy and scum hasn't been banned every country worldwide but the one where the plutocrats run the country.
Well they did release torch…
I'll add that Meta doesn't actually physically work on top of that
What do we want from companies? Companies tied to a real identity, social networking. You want a way for people to message you -
...oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433
...oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712
...oops https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/1c0xfdz/messenger...
...and a way to see people's status updates.
...oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719
Seriously has any CEO of a tech company been caught doing what MZ has done? Oops. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770818, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122)
The URL of the source for the last link is not working, this is the updated version: https://boingboing.net/2010/09/14/damning-zuckerberg-i.html
I hope they find them a billion dollars a day
They are not breaking EU law.
>Under EU law, online platforms should "engage in good faith" with the body, but its decision is not legally binding.
It's fine if you just want to see Facebook suffer but let's not pretend they are breaking the law.
Unless a user is paying money or otherwise in a legally binding contract that would be breached by a ban, I see no reason why a company shouldn't be able to ban them even on a whim. Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.
This might feel like a reasonable take in isolation, but if you take it in context of today's society, and how everything actually works, it's not reasonable or realistic. Nor is it empathetic in any way.
These social media companies have created an environment where they are the dominant, near-exclusive, medium for communication in our digital age. If you are running a consumer-facing business in 2026 you *must* be on these platforms.
Given that these companies have actively pursued these positions they now hold, do you not feel they have a responsibility to be fair, reliable and trustworthy? That they have some obligation to their users, paying or not. They are choosing to offer the service for free, and they do make money on you regardless.
Losing your business accounts on Meta or Tiktok or Youtube can have catastrophic real-world consequences. And mistakes happen all the time, so you can't realistically assume every ban or cancellation is justified or correct.
In any case it's the users who built these companies by using their platform. It's users who need to rally and migrate away in solidarity with those being banned or whatever it may be. I'd say expecting companies to not do whatever they consider is in their best interest is what's not reasonable nor realistic. A company exists to make money; if banning certain users advances that mandate then it's free and expected to. Again, unless there's some legal basis to counteract that decision.
It’s hard to wrap up the past couple decades of tech building out their utility-like selves, showing how it breaks a heuristic of “it’s their business-just don’t use it”, so I’m impressed how well you’ve done it.
> do you not feel they have a responsibility to be fair, reliable and trustworthy?
What an odd question. Of course not. You've built your business on their platform and you've (for lots of non-specific, general "you"'s) decided to cede your business to their whims. Plenty of businesses exist just fine with no social media presence and plenty of people are not too brain-rotted to find them.
But more to the point, I don't feel Meta has any responsibility to anyone. I feel the government in my country has a responsibility to regulate them and to levy devastating and potentially existential fines if they break those regulations. It's absurd to think these companies have any obligation to you (you in general, not you specifically) just because you can't figure out how to function without them.
> Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.
Businesses can lose a lot traffic by not being present on Facebook and Instagram, so being unjustifiably banned is doing measurable financial harm in many cases.
Even as an individual it can be a huge pain to not have Facebook. The local individual sales market (e.g. classified ads) is dominated by Facebook Marketplace now, for example, and not having access to that market makes it difficult to sell things.
Meta has a responsibility to the community because of their position as the de facto platform for many activities. They've even intentionally positioned themselves to dominate. Having laws requiring them to act responsibly is totally justifiable.
Regulatory laws can always be made of course, but it's unrealistic to expect that Meta, or any other company, will do any more than is required to ensure they're turning a profit.
Then there's no reason why a government shouldn't regulate these companies, and use sanctions of all kinds - including fines, and the potential for an outright ban - to enforce those regulations.
Sure, a government is free to make/modify laws and regulations that apply to any entity within its jurisdiction.
From what I understand nothing in the EU regulation prevents a company from arbitrarily banning people. You can read it in full here: https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act.... It basically just establishes how the dispute should be handled between the parties
"Whims" skew discriminatory.
Enough of the real world interfaces with online services that arbitrary bans cause actual damages, more harm than banning an annoying player from your obscure MUD.
Disabled passengers who take a long time to load into rideshare vehicles are an example here where we want oversight on platform bans. Getting banned from both Uber & Lyft in the US with no recourse, even no human review, can disenfranchise.
i would support this if local/state/provincial/federal governments were not allowed to post exclusively on social media. other companies should also not be allowed to use social media as their only method of customer support.
Then there should be a law that requires the platform to interoperate with independent clients. You can't have both. The social network is a common good. If you want to benefit from it, then you need to treat people fairly.
> The social network is a common good.
Not if it's managed by a company, in which case it's a means to turn a profit. A common good needs to be managed by the community to which it's providing said good, or by an entity that's legally bound to ensure it remains "good" for the community.