- Регистрация
- 17 Февраль 2018
- Сообщения
- 25 397
- Лучшие ответы
- 0
- Баллы
- 2 093
Offline
X is the latest notable tech company to land in trouble with the European Union. The European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, has revealed the preliminary findings of an investigation. It claims that X has violated the Digital Services Act (DSA) in a number of ways.
The platform’s approach to paid verification has come into the EU’s crosshairs. Officials say that the practice “does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users.” It added that, since anyone can pay to get a blue checkmark, it’s difficult for folks to determine the authenticity of accounts (a browser extension can tell you which accounts are verified because of notability and which paid for a checkmark). The EU also said there’s evidence of bad actors using checkmarks to hoodwink people.
X's problems with verification stem back several years. But at least when it was known as Twitter, the blue check was a (reasonably) reliable form of assurance that an account was the real deal. Paid checkmarks, and the increase in visibility that Premium users get, seems to have led to an increase in scams and spam — just as many predicted.
Next up, the EU took issue with X’s alleged lack of advertising transparency. It claimed the company doesn’t have a reliable, searchable ad repository that enables researchers to look into “emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.”
In addition, the EU said X is violating the DSA by failing to give researchers sufficient access to public data. “In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service,” the bloc argued in a statement. In the EU’s view, researchers are either dissuaded from carrying out projects or forced to pay “disproportionately high fees” to do so given the way that X has set up its application programming interfaces (APIs).
"Back in the day, Blue Checks used to mean trustworthy sources of information. Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the DSA," Thierry Breton, the EU's internal market commissioner, said in a statement. "We also consider that X’s ads repository and conditions for data access by researchers are not in line with the DSA transparency requirements. X has now the right of defense — but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines and require significant changes."
If X is found guilty, it will face fines of up to six percent of its global annual revenue — so we may get a sense of just how much money the now privately held company is making these days. The EU may also direct X to take steps to ensure compliance with the DSA and impose further periodic fines if the company does not do so.
The EU hasn't been shy in taking tech companies to task under the DSA and its sibling legislation, the Digital Markets Act. Meta and Apple could both be on the hook for multibillion-dollar fines if preliminary findings of investigations hold up.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/x-is-in-ho...lue-checkmarks-and-ads-145003468.html?src=rss
The platform’s approach to paid verification has come into the EU’s crosshairs. Officials say that the practice “does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users.” It added that, since anyone can pay to get a blue checkmark, it’s difficult for folks to determine the authenticity of accounts (a browser extension can tell you which accounts are verified because of notability and which paid for a checkmark). The EU also said there’s evidence of bad actors using checkmarks to hoodwink people.
X's problems with verification stem back several years. But at least when it was known as Twitter, the blue check was a (reasonably) reliable form of assurance that an account was the real deal. Paid checkmarks, and the increase in visibility that Premium users get, seems to have led to an increase in scams and spam — just as many predicted.
Next up, the EU took issue with X’s alleged lack of advertising transparency. It claimed the company doesn’t have a reliable, searchable ad repository that enables researchers to look into “emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.”
In addition, the EU said X is violating the DSA by failing to give researchers sufficient access to public data. “In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service,” the bloc argued in a statement. In the EU’s view, researchers are either dissuaded from carrying out projects or forced to pay “disproportionately high fees” to do so given the way that X has set up its application programming interfaces (APIs).
"Back in the day, Blue Checks used to mean trustworthy sources of information. Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the DSA," Thierry Breton, the EU's internal market commissioner, said in a statement. "We also consider that X’s ads repository and conditions for data access by researchers are not in line with the DSA transparency requirements. X has now the right of defense — but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines and require significant changes."
If X is found guilty, it will face fines of up to six percent of its global annual revenue — so we may get a sense of just how much money the now privately held company is making these days. The EU may also direct X to take steps to ensure compliance with the DSA and impose further periodic fines if the company does not do so.
The EU hasn't been shy in taking tech companies to task under the DSA and its sibling legislation, the Digital Markets Act. Meta and Apple could both be on the hook for multibillion-dollar fines if preliminary findings of investigations hold up.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/x-is-in-ho...lue-checkmarks-and-ads-145003468.html?src=rss
