The guy who runs W Social, whilst he has a software developer background, has worked most of his time in the financial world. W social is also an LLC. It's a corporation with shares looking to make a profit somehow. No doubt there will be ads on there, and paid features.
I don't see how this will ever become a success, not because it's going closed source (people here don't care), or because it might have paid features (people here don't care) in the future, or even ands (people here don't care), but because of the name. Who the hell thought "W Social" was a good name for a company?
We are so bad at company names here in the EU it's embarrassing.
SpaceX is 90% xAI and 10% space. It's no longer a space exploration company, it's an AI company (with a sub-par product). Insane (and dumb) valuation, kind of like Tesla.
We're terrible at company and brand naming here in Europe. Just look at the "Wero" payment solution (formerly/currently iDeal). Like, who the hell came up with that stupid name?
The list of stupid European company names and product names are endless.
Agents should be treated like users. Would you give another user you know is a bit careless, write access to your important documents and data? Probably not. I get it that people don't want to be bothered by "can i do this and that?" requests, but there's no other real solution.
In the EU the platform becomes responsible for posted content, the moment someone notifies them that they are hosting something illegal. They have plausible deniability until notified, after which they have a certain time to act, and if they don't they are criminally liable. The user posting the content is also liable, from the moment they made the post.
Countries in Europe (and most of the world) have positive constitutions, which defines what the government "must do" (for its citizens), whilst the USA has a negative constitution that defines what the government "cannot do" (against its citizens).
What constitutes hate speech is carefully defined in the constitutions of EU countries. Politicians can't just amend or extend the definition at will, except in the UK which has a strange system of laws and not a constitution like you're used to in the USA or in the EU.
In Europe we recognize that Hitler came to power by abusing free speech, which is why using the same rhetoric now can land you in trouble with the law. We also recognize that the pen is mightier than the sword and that unfettered speech can be used to persuade groups of people to use violence against other groups of people.
Let me quote again: Pay attention to c.iv specifically:
(c) ‘child pornography’ means:
(i) any material that visually depicts a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct;
(ii) any depiction of the sexual organs of a child for primarily sexual purposes;
(iii) any material that visually depicts any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct or any depiction of the sexual organs of any person appearing to be a child, for primarily sexual purposes; or
(iv) realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
2. disseminates, transfers, provides, exhibits, or otherwise makes such an image of a child available to another person,
3. acquires or offers such an image of a child,
4. facilitates contacts between buyers and sellers of such images of children or takes any other similar measure intended to promote trade in such images, or
5. possesses such an image of a child or views such an image to which he or she has gained access
shall be sentenced for a child pornography offense to imprisonment for at most two years.
Then there's Proposition 2009/10:70, which is a clarifying document on how the law should be interpreted:
"To depict a child in a pornographic image entails the production of such an image of a child. An image can be produced in various ways, e.g., by photographing, filming, or drawing a real child. Through various techniques, more or less artificial images can also be created. For criminal liability, it is not required that the image depicts a real child; images of fictitious children are also covered. New productions can also be created by reproducing or manipulating already existing depictions, for example, by editing film sequences together in a different order or by splicing an image of a child’s head onto an image of another child’s body."
Maybe you should look up child pornography laws in Europe. In Sweden, the mere act of scrolling by an image depicting (real or not) a child in a sexual position, and having it stored in the browser cache, is a crime with up to 2 years of prison time.
Maybe US law makes a distinction, but in Europe there is no difference. Sexual depictions of children (real or not) is considered child pornography and will get you sent to the slammer.
This is the cyber crime unit. They will exfiltrate any data they want. They will use employee account to pivot into the rest of the X network. They don't just go in, grab a couple of papers, laptops and phones. They hook into the network and begin cracking.
Within the Schengen area, you don't really need an ID to get on a plane either. In fact you can go through security screening in many places without an ID or a valid ticket.
Being anti-immigration doesn't automatically swing the party to the right. As written on Wikipedia, "left-conservative" is probably the best label.
The Swedish far-left loves to, for instance, brand the governing party in Denmark as far-right, but they are actually also left-conservative.
It is possible (shocker) to be liberal and progressive, whilst also being pro-assimilation, pro-deportation, anti-immigration.