The question: To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose banning political adverts from being shown on social media platforms?
They conclude with: Voters for far-right parties are frequently less likely to support banning of political advertising on social media … and less likely to think regulations are too lax … typically less likely to think social media regulations are too relaxed (with Italy being an exception).
Maybe the issue here is that many political options have social media and underground marketing as their only option due to heavy bias and censorship on European traditional media.
Even the term used here "far right" is an euphemism for opinions not approved by governing European regimes.
EDIT: I am ignoring this link since its main source is Corrective, propaganda outlet funded by the German regime.
Well, if you ignore all the evidence you consider inconvenient, you could, you know, read their own self-description as "right wing" and combine that with the observation of them being too right wing for the other right wing parties.
> It [regime] is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world.
Seems like they don't like when their citizens apply the same terminology.
"Far right" views are far right views. They are morally repulsive in the extreme. We've witnessed the consequences before.
AfD in Germany. Le Pen in France. Fratelli d’Italia in Italy. VOX in Spain. PVV in the Netherlands.
I do not know that any of those parties would seriously disagree with their classification as far right.
AfD party later is gay and merited with a coloured migrant lay.
But hey, they beat gays and Jews. Probably kick kittens and puppies too.
https://www.zentralratderjuden.de/presse/juden-gegen-die-afd...
It's important though, that attempts from foreign governmental entities (you might guess which country) might backfire if it's against popular policy decisions. I'm not sure if this foreign government is aware of it.
They'll be weighing constituents by their ability and willingness to give campaign donations and other favors.
Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Participating in a society means social contract, not: I have the absolute right to sink the boat so that everyone dies.
I don’t think this is really an issue of censorship to a lot of people (though that may be how it shakes out in the government) but rather of control over their digital environment and sanity.
EDIT: I don’t think this is what I’m remembering, but it has concrete numbers somewhat lower than I thought (48% of teens think social media harms people their age, but only 14% think it harms them personally) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social...
I think an easier way to achieves instead of imposing this on everyone. Social media companies should be required to add paid tier where the individual user can block the types of the user does not want to see, (or just block all of them).
In some places perhaps the government would ban "free social media" and only allow the paid tier to operate.
This in the best case would make the price reasonably low, if the social media company does not want to lose a lot of users. Perhaps even subsidised. At which point the goal set above is achieved.
The key being age verification. Under 18, or maybe 16 accounts have: Mandatory blackout periods (after 9pm most account functions stop working, parents could set this more aggressively if they cared about the child's studies). Interaction limits like time spent on feeds, type of content that will appear in feeds, number of friends, visibility of comments ect. Only one account allowed and enforcement taken seriously.
Over 16/18s should have the option to "time themselves out" for a chosen period with their account going into a limited mode where feeds no longer work . Similar to the option problem gamblers have where gambling sites are supposed to stop them playing if they block themselves. Maybe when someone needs to focus for exams or a work commitment.
Sure kids will try and get round limits, but I think when you have investment in a main account it would be something you would want to keep, so the threat of loosing it would be real.
If you concede in your first sentence, obviously not.
It’s happened in Australia. It’s building in America. And I think there are enough European countries
Opinion disregarded.
Seriously, I no longer care about the opinions of europeans when it comes to social issues, but particularly with regards to the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, obscenity, or indeed anything of import online, as the European Union (and former EU states like the UK) are transparently run like banana republics whose barely-elected bureaucrats run them like their own little ramshackle empire for their personal enrichment. For some strange reason I simply can't be bothered to entertain the opinions of people who willingly defend a system like that. Whatever the problems we may have on this side of the pond I'd much rather attend to them without europeans injecting their opinions into the matter.
Put simply: If a 'European Majority' favors more social media regulation -- perhaps that European Majority should defederate from the internet. No, seriously, get lost. You won't be missed. If anything, we'll be happy to reclaim your IPv4 addresses.
Bold Statement. I wonder though, could you offer examples of places in the world today where it is being done otherwise?
If you are from the US, I’m laughing my butt off, the irony is not lost on me.
Seriously, though, it's not that we don't have our own problems... just that I'm tired of europeans telling the rest of us how we should run our own affairs. Inviting Europe into the Internet was a mistake.
It's the results of a survey where yougov (A European organisation) asked other Europeans how they think European social media should be regulated.
No suggestion that laws would/could/should be changed anywhere, and especially not in America.
Ok, this level of self-denial is funny!
the bottomless irony of this statement XD
Also someone whose name is Earl (norsk-germanic for King) and King.. you seem to be hell bent on an anti-european slant.. whilst having a pretty European name.
If they want access to American tech and services, they should have to live with American regulation and jurisdiction.
Petty tyrannical clowns who shouldn't be running a lemonade stand, let alone "major" world governments, should have nothing to do with anything more technical than a pocket calculator unless their own people developed it.
In a society freedoms are compromises. Absolute freedoms means all for some and nothing for the rest. The EU at least tries a balance. Countries like the US don’t seem to care and seem to favor the strongest or even sociopaths.
By this logic, when government suppresses speech that is a violation of one's rights?
They're cesspools of far-right propaganda, American and Russian disinformation and psychological warfare on our population.
Democracy has to defend itself. We shouldn't just let foreign despots and their oligarchs walk all over us with their cyberweapons.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-x-effect-how-elon-musk-is-boo...
andsoitis•2h ago
You mean "social media regulation". Not "tech regulation".
nis0s•1h ago
amarant•1h ago
notahacker•1h ago
[1]the UK calls its military satcomms network that, but we've always been different...
fancyfredbot•1h ago
It does not mention surveillance, and it's not about tech in general. The title is misleading. (Edit: the OP kindly updated the title and it's no longer misleading)
bilbo0s•1h ago
Which, ironically, given the topic of this post, speaks to the kinds of pathologies we find out on social media these days.
andersa•1h ago
alphager•1h ago
snowpid•1h ago