[HN Gopher] EU DSA: Industry and government interests prevail ov...
___________________________________________________________________
EU DSA: Industry and government interests prevail over citizens'
digital rights
Author : deutschepost
Score : 145 points
Date : 2022-04-23 08:22 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.patrick-breyer.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.patrick-breyer.de)
| sdoering wrote:
| Reading the posts here I have to take a radically different point
| of view. Maybe even an unpopular one.
|
| These topics, as with most politically discussed topics just
| aren't important. At least to most constituents. If I look around
| and talk to people they don't care about digital privacy. On the
| contrary. They don't want these cookie banners. They blame the
| GDPR for those. They are pissed because online and offline they
| need to click banners or fill out paper forms to get even basic
| services.
|
| If I think about the GDPR related things I had to fill out at
| doctors, veterinarians and such when I (or my animals) needed
| help I can relate. You just want help not read page after page of
| legalese.
|
| People were trained to correlate data privacy with stuff that
| annoys them.
|
| So no. It doesn't matter. Not to the majority of people I
| believe. Especially not when it is at the EU level.
| beever wrote:
| The consumer protection aspects of this law are simply cover for
| its real purpose: installing tighter controls on what people are
| allowed to say and read on the internet, in the convenient guise
| of clamping down on "disinformation" and "hate speech". The
| ruling elite are furiously scrambling to censor, stamp out and
| criminalize any mass communication that they perceive as a threat
| to their entrenched power.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Pirate Party needs to start learning from the alt-right and the
| the politicians with other totalitarian tendencies. Instead of
| maksimalist goals that "must be achieved at once or we are
| doomed", better find something analogous of "think of the
| children" instrument which is used by the bureaucrats to gain
| power and aim for gradual steps in a similar way that the alt-
| right is doing it. Marine Le Pen in France become a credible
| candidate by distancing herself from maximalist and extreme
| ambitions(that she probably still holds) and aim for issues that
| large number of people want addressed(not just elitist niches).
| Populism is fine, up to a point.
|
| Equating the "Not everything that we wanted was implemented" with
| "We lost everything, they won" sounds toxic to me. It's also
| arrogant t believe that you have the perfect solution for
| everything, you are pure and all knowing when the others are
| corrupt and stupid.
|
| I like having pirate parties as a voice but the I would never
| vote for them, they are extremist and maksimalist IMHO.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| any powerful persuasion, even if disingenuous, is worth the
| outcomes?
| mrtksn wrote:
| Nope, just that people who want to gain power in a democracy
| and change something need to realize that they need to have
| tools to make large number of people vote for them.
|
| You can't write JavaScript in a C compiler and complain that
| nothing compiles.
| tangental wrote:
| "Think of the children" is used to pre-emptively attack any
| opposition to what is being proposed, i.e. "you are against
| this? you don't care about children?". It is despised by
| privacy advocates and I wouldn't support any group who used a
| tactic like that.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Kids' privacy seem like a very valid use-case for that.
| Because kids and adults are not necessarily easy to
| distinguish, bingo bango bongo, privacy for everyone by
| default.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| You are projecting, the update is not so defeatist. It starts
| with listing achievements, then says that overall the new
| document does not deserve the name of 'digital constitution'
| and an opportunity was wasted.
|
| Not _the_ opportunity. More will come and I got an impression
| that PP will keep fighting. I would vote for PP if I could.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| I think you have mixed up the real idea behind "think of the
| children." It can be used as a fig leaf for things the
| politically powerful wish to do but are specifically unpopular.
| It can be used to do things that certain politicians want to do
| that the politically powerful are, as a class, indifferent to.
|
| Where it doesn't work is to do things that are popular among
| the electorate but that the politically powerful are opposed
| to. No catchphrase will help you with that, unfortunately.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| This whole bill is things that are popular with citizen and
| that companies opposed. They didn't have to start writing a
| digital services act, and it's building on privacy
| protections that were already better than anywhere else on
| earth. The assumption that big business has all the power and
| always gets everything it wants is prima facie disproven
| here.
| mrtksn wrote:
| No I did not mixed it up, I'm suggesting that proponents of
| something unpopular need to obtain a tool that works to
| defend their positions. Not an awful lot of people are into
| the stuff that Pirate Party advocates, maybe they should find
| something to push for that an awful lot of people are
| interested in. "Save the kids" so far has been a very
| effective tool, the only time it failed as far as I remember
| is the Apple's auto-policing for CSAM proposal. The internet
| privacy and freedom advocates need to have something like
| that.
| jancsika wrote:
| You've convinced me. Here's a sensible compromise I can
| imagine:
|
| 1. Make a panel of concerned parents to review abuses by
| recommendation engines and to stop tracking abuses. Think
| of the children!
|
| 2. Give law enforcement the tools they need to deanonymize
| the abusers and criminals who are trafficking our kids. We
| don't want them to go dark-- think of the children!
|
| What do you think? I sure hope you're the type of person
| who _really_ cares about the children, and not the kind of
| opportunist who would reflexively argue against #2.
|
| And, scene.
|
| If you've got _legitimate_ concerns about the children with
| well-documented evidence, let 's hear it. Otherwise you're
| going to be out of your league.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I'm confused. Did I give you the impression that I
| believe that "save the children" is a legitimate concern
| for controlling the internet?
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I used to argue against this line of thinking, but as time
| progressed, I have become progressively more jaded and
| cynical. I wonder if I am effectively becoming what I
| previously fought against ('think of the children' line of
| argumentation), but as time have shown time and time again,
| it simply works and I am kinda done letting technical
| illiterates dictate my life.
|
| Maybe we don't have to lower ourselves to exactly that
| argument, but surely there are other popular takes.
| mrtksn wrote:
| IMHO, intellectual debates and making people go vote for
| you are different things.
|
| You don't need a position of power to discuss stuff and
| come to conclusions.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| So, something like "Europe and America will turn into
| China-style mass surveillance states if we don't demand a
| change in direction immediately"?
|
| Has the benefit of being relatively true as well. Google
| leadership was all too eager to get in on the Chinese
| censorship machine (Dragonfly) as I recall:
|
| https://archive.thinkprogress.org/google-dragonfly-china-
| cen...
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The Czech Pirate Party, now in government, has basically
| abandoned its focus on digital topics and concentrates on
| power, lawmaking and who is going to get which seat on what
| ministry.
|
| A huge disappointment. Their once-core positions are now good
| for lip service only. Even the Pirate Party Forum (an open
| discussion forum) is now basically concentrated on power
| politics and discussions about such important agendas have
| atrophied.
| [deleted]
| mlinksva wrote:
| Do you have a recommendation of where I could read more about
| how the Czech Pirate Party has done in government, either
| national or local (eg mayor of Prague)? I don't see anything
| skimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Pirate_Party and
| very little reading the Czech version autotranslated.
|
| I'm under the impression that at least one of their MEPs
| (Marcel Kolaja; edit: indeed, quoted in the article which I
| hadn't read before commenting, shame on me!) does substantial
| work on digital issues, but I guess the incentives faced by
| MEPs are very different from those in national or local
| office. Is that right?
| verisimi wrote:
| Can we say it plainly yet?
|
| We live in a fascist system (corporations + governance), where
| the government undertakes and waves through the legislation the
| corporations want.
|
| The individual is not a 'stakeholder'.
|
| And with the technology, the existing tyranny will increase -
| that's technocracy.
|
| All that's needed is to manufacture the consent of the masses.
| They want us to want it.
| mrtksn wrote:
| No that's not true. The decisions in the European Parliament
| were made by people freely elected in 2019 elections. The
| person who wrote this piece is a member of a minor party in the
| European Parliament[0] that is not happy with the decision.
|
| [0]
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197431/PATRICK_BREYER...
|
| The expectation that the Pirate Party, which has quite small
| public support, will steamroll over the politicians with large
| public support is appalling. Governance by all knowing computer
| elites who don't have a significant public support is the
| actual fascism IMHO.
|
| They simply need to convince the public first in orther to
| change things.
| car_analogy wrote:
| > The decisions in the European Parliament were made by
| people freely elected in 2019 elections.
|
| Freely electing representatives does not mean those
| representatives will faithfully execute the will of their
| voters. The people of the US freely elect their
| representatives, and yet:
|
| _Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and
| organised groups representing business interests have
| substantial independent impacts on US government policy,
| while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have
| little or no independent influence._ -
| https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
|
| That is not to say the same is true in the EU, but it shows
| that free elections alone are no guarantee that voter
| preferences influence policy.
| mrtksn wrote:
| > Freely electing representatives does not mean those
| representatives will faithfully execute the will of their
| voters.
|
| That's exactly what it means - the caveat is, not being
| hostile to businesses and work with the businesses is part
| of the reason why people will choose them. If they fail to
| deliver enough, they don't get elected again. That's
| actually the core premise of a representative democracy.
|
| Elite cabal from a completely different species controlling
| the system in which we are slaves producing stuff that are
| sent to a galaxy far way is a fantasy. The "elites" are
| just people who manage the machinery that produces the
| stuff that the folks want. You can argue over their
| disproportionate compensation but when a political makes a
| decision in favour of an interest group, let's say steel
| production, they also make the decision in favour of the
| people who earn their living from that business.
|
| It can be argued over the long term impacts but that's part
| of the process. For example, we are in process convincing
| people that they need to give up some of their comforts to
| prevent very bad things happening 50 years from now. Once
| they get convinced, vote in people who will work for it and
| they do the thing.
|
| Most times it is a compromise because people have
| conflicting interests and the people voted in need to come
| to a solution that works good enough for everyone.
| brigandish wrote:
| MSPs have no power to propose legislation, the Commission
| does that and it is not elected by the people, so it's a
| stretch to claim that a parliament that can only rubber
| stamp things is a representative democracy. Would the
| Soviet system be a representative democracy? It's a very
| similar set up.
| mrtksn wrote:
| The commission members are appointed by the elected
| governments of the member states(one each) and need to be
| approved by the European Parliament. Let's not portray it
| as if they are clerks of an external organisation.
|
| Anyway, if the MP's were simply rubber stamping whatever
| the commissioners propose, what they were discussing for
| 16 hours? Obviously, the portrayal of unelected
| bureaucrats shovelling whatever they want down the throat
| of the people is false.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| 'That's exactly what it means'
|
| That is exactly what is doesn't mean, the poster you are
| replying to has provided proof in the form of peer revied
| research.
|
| You don't get to dismiss that based on how something
| should hypothetically work in an ideal world.
|
| 'That's actually the core premise of a representative
| democracy.'
|
| Communism also has a core premice, that does not mean
| it's valid and holds in a given country today
|
| "Elite cabal from a completely different species
| controlling the system in which we are slaves"
|
| The same argument judtifies Feudalism
|
| "when a political makes a decision in favour of an
| interest group, let's say steel production"
|
| This is literally the dictionary definition of
| 'undemocratic'
|
| And it also would justify Feudalism
| dathinab wrote:
| > The people of the US freely elect their representatives,
| and yet:
|
| Not really, due to the nature of the US political system
| which is strongly based around dynamics which make sure
| that the parties in power stay in power.
|
| Calling elections for a (in practice) two party system free
| is a bit of an stretch.
|
| I mean sure it's better then a (in practice) one party
| system, but still there is (in practice) no real choice to
| vote for, nor can "you" create a new choice (in practice,
| theoretical you could but due to the dynamics of the system
| it doesn't work in practice EDIT: As long as not one of
| both of the parties fully collapse and even then it might
| not work).
| car_analogy wrote:
| You are correct, I forgot to consider they dysfunctional
| first-past-the-post voting system. Even so, while that
| gives the EU better chances at real democracy, there are
| still many ways to interfere with popular will, so one
| cannot dismiss all criticism with "well they got the
| votes".
| verisimi wrote:
| No, you're quite right - this is great news!
|
| Politicians really are executing the will of the people!
| They're not simply passing legislation that justifies
| unacceptable invasion of privacy and sanctions the mining of
| the individual's information.
|
| phew!
| pmontra wrote:
| > We live in a fascist system (corporations + governance),
|
| OK, I agreee that fascism is bad but is that fascism? I don't
| like to see words with a precise meaning [1] being used as a
| catch all for everything we dislike. What you describe is a
| democracy of corporations, not one of the people which vote
| but have far less effect on decisions than corporations have.
| It's on a divergent axis from fascism which is dictatorship,
| suppression of opposition and control of economy and society.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
| verisimi wrote:
| "democracy of corporations"? Misnomer much?
|
| Demos - means people. Corporations are dead entities -
| corpses. They have a sort of life, even though they are not
| alive.
|
| Still, perhaps this is closer to the truth. The people who
| run corporations, get to decide what those corporations do.
| The corporations are just a buffer to actual individuals.
|
| Also, its worth noting that we do not have (and never have
| had) democracy.
|
| Democracy is where people make the decisions. All the
| decisions.
|
| What we have is a system where we vote in people who
| represent us - or so it is claimed. They politicians we
| vote in, re-present us (read 'serve us up') and make
| decisions on your behalf.
|
| PS Wikipedia is hardly a bastion of truth. But you can see
| a section called 'Corporatist economic system' which
| indicates (lightly) that corporations were a part of the
| control system. I would say that these apparent
| distinctions are a show - especially nowadays. The
| corporations, governance system and the media (that is
| apparently holding someone to account, but are really about
| mis-directing the conversation) are all part of the overall
| governance structure.
|
| PPS In the City of London, things work as you say -
| corporations are able to vote.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| "PPS In the City of London, things work as you say -
| corporations are able to vote."
|
| How does this work?
| mrtksn wrote:
| City of London is fascinating. They are a corporation
| that acts like a government within a government and in
| the elections the residents and businesses have voting
| rights.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "steamroll over the politicians with large public support is
| appalling"
|
| Do you really think this is about the Pirate Party? If we had
| a referendum on this issue tomorrow, do you really think that
| the position held by mainsteam politians wouldn't loose by a
| landslide?
| mrtksn wrote:
| > do you really think that the position held by mainsteam
| politians wouldn't loose by a landslide
|
| If the referendum are not held on hackernews or reddit and
| the mainstream politicians are given a time to defend their
| positions, I think the results won't be much different than
| what people voted so far.
|
| The pirate party(~parties all over the EU) are bunch of
| idealists who so far failed to gain any significant
| traction.
|
| People love the idea that the pure and freedom loving
| societies are held hostage by fascist elites but that's
| probably the case only if a very few countries, definitely
| not EU, US or even Russia or Turkey. People love whatever
| their position is, ban this mandate that is all they
| want(it's just that different people want different things
| to banned or mandated). Notice how people tirelessly are
| wedging cultural wars over who should f*ck who, be called
| what, get dressed what, eat what.
|
| We have whatever we have because that's whatever the people
| want. It slowly changes over time as new people are born
| and the older ones die off.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > We have whatever we have because that's whatever the
| people want.
|
| So you never heard of terms like Democratic Deficit, you
| have never read any serious research on the subject, you
| have not heard that USA was declared a flawed democracy.
| You personal opinion trumps whatever Phds and proffesors
| have come up with and published as peer reviewed
| research?
|
| > I think the results won't be much different than what
| people voted so far.
|
| The pirate party(~parties all over the EU) are bunch of
| idealists who so far failed to gain any significant
| traction.
|
| This is a total Non-Sequitour - the facts/arguments you
| are providing do not support the assertions/opinions you
| are putting forward.
|
| The Green Party in United Kingdom has almost no
| representation. However polling has shown that if you
| take any green party policy, it has like 70% support
| across the electorate. Why do people not vote for green
| party? That's up for debate, maybe people are stuck in
| the old Labour/Tory mindset, maybe it's the First past
| the Post System, maybe they debate poorly, there could be
| a million reasons.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| And I thought I might be overdoing it with my comment about the
| everything-is-corrupt-manufacturing-consent-soros-etc-etc-
| crowd, (far) upthread :)
| chki wrote:
| This is an absurd position to take with regards to new
| legislation that will in almost no way benefit corporations.
| Sure, it might be watered down and not as effective as it could
| have been - as alleged in the article. But it's still
| legislation that corporations would much rather not have and be
| able to do what they want.
| gruez wrote:
| >We live in a fascist system (corporations + governance), where
| the government undertakes and waves through the legislation the
| corporations want.
|
| That's not what fascism means.
|
| >Fascism (/'faeSIz@m/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian
| ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power,
| forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of
| society and the economy
|
| It's sad that "fascist" became one of those words that are
| thrown around for anything (ie. politicians/parties/system of
| governance) that one doesn't like.
| DaedPsyker wrote:
| To be fair, I think they are referring to the fascist form of
| corporatism[1]. Which although that isn't quite its meaning
| (corporations + governance), it's a lot closer to using a
| correct aspect of fascism than most people who use the term
| do. I suppose Plutocracy or the less common, Corporatocracy,
| would suit better.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > Cross-border removal orders issued by illiberal member states
| without a court order can take down media reports and information
| that is perfectly legal in the country of publication.
|
| It is bad, but what's worse is that this is not even all that
| consequential. Remember the case with Leica advert featuring the
| famous Tiananmen shot taken with one of their cameras? After
| CCP's outrage, Leica took it down at its own initiative (and
| nearly apologized to boot).
| izacus wrote:
| Well, this behaviour is now the law. Not just a choice of
| corporations, but they're now compelled by EU to continue
| taking down content.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Which means, people in liberal member states will no longer be
| indifferent towards the actions of the illiberal ones. Maybe if
| the illiberal states don't share the values of the liberal
| ones, they shouldn't be in the same union? The thoughts an
| prayers being with the democrats of Hungary is not enough,
| Hungarians might better choose if they want to be a part of the
| society that tolerates stuff or go live in a system where
| Putin-like governance is the way to go.
|
| I'm kind of hoping for a similar thing happening globally. The
| actions of states like Saudi Arabia are well tolerated only
| because their actions don't have any real impact in EU or USA.
| otherotherchris wrote:
| I think this is going to expose the core problem in Europe,
| that the political classes of the "liberal" member states are
| just giving lip service to the "fraternity equality liberty"
| crap and care no more for free speech or free association
| than their "authoritarian" neighbours.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Sounds good to me. If they are proven to fail to deliver on
| "fraternity equality liberty", a political movement that
| demands it can catch fire.
| izacus wrote:
| So the result here is going to be even more content/account bans
| without possibility of complaint on all digital platforms? And
| inability for Google competitors to enter the market because they
| can't afford a massive AI autibanning system to comply with
| requirement.
|
| Our EU seriously seems to try to regulate competition out of
| existence :/
| DethNinja wrote:
| I'm a small business owner with an online digital platform.
|
| I'm going through the DSA now and it looks like they exempted
| most of the hard to implement requirements for micro/small
| businesses.
|
| You can find the full regulation here: https://eur-
| lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=16081171...
|
| So long as you don't have millions of users, you are exempt
| from "Section 3" requirements. If you got millions of users,
| I'm sure such companies can afford implementing the mentioned
| regulations.
|
| Honestly, it currently doesn't look extremely bad for
| small/micro businesses but we will see.
| otherotherchris wrote:
| Oh it's far worse than that. The next fundamentalist quasi-
| dictatorship in Romania, Poland or Hungary gets to decide
| what's illegal and immoral and therefore censored in Belgium
| and Sweden.
| DoItToMe81 wrote:
| I agree with regulation, but some of this is very concerning.
| By the Polish government's actions, pointing out the very
| real Polish pogroms and Polish informants who turned in Jews
| could be considered misinformation. This will be abused by
| some the increasingly illiberal and nationalist states in the
| EU.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Just like the Brits...there can always be a Belgone and a
| Swedone.
|
| Oh....here we go, then: Germano Italeave sPain Portugallivant
| The Neverlands
|
| Cont. on p94.
| Zenst wrote:
| The phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
| comes to mind.
|
| Whilst they are focused upon the larger outlets and targeting
| that, the lesser, future platforms will be burdened with an
| entry cost far higher than before; Pushing that opertunity of
| inivation further from the reaches of those on the otherside of
| wealth.
|
| Just ironic that the intentions of the EU upon this only fuel
| anticomepative divides via that entry cost barrier to compete.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > lesser, future platforms will be burdened with an entry
| cost far higher than before; Pushing that opertunity of
| inivation further from the reaches of those on the otherside
| of wealth
|
| Yet again, HN doesn't even bother to read before commenting.
|
| The law applies to platforms with more than 45 million users.
| By the time you have that many, you're not a "lesser platform
| that's hurting".
| kmlx wrote:
| pewdiepie, a youtuber, has 111 million subscribers. europe
| is underestimating the web.
| iso1210 wrote:
| pewdiepie isn't a platform. It's also a major business
| with plenty of turnover and the ability to obey the laws
| of the juristiction the company operates in.
| buzer wrote:
| > The law applies to platforms with more than 45 million
| users. By the time you have that many, you're not a "lesser
| platform that's hurting".
|
| There are only some parts on regulation that affects those
| with more than 45 million active users.
| https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-
| safe...
|
| [edit] Reading the actual regulation text a bit closer, it
| looks like there are additional categories than those
| presented in EC's overview page. Some of the elements do
| not apply certain small companies defined "a small
| enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer
| than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual
| balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million" (+some
| additional restrictions on things like ownership.
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...)
| Vespasian wrote:
| I recommend this article
| https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-institution...
| with additional factual reporting on what the DSA contains.
|
| Patrick Breyer is a member of the Pirate party which holds a
| minority position and isn't quite happy with the results. While
| their views are, of course, a valuable part of the discussion,
| they portray the DSA in a deliberately bad light.
| anfogoat wrote:
| I know Breyer's agenda while ascertaining what EURACTIV's
| agenda is seems like year long endeavor. Plus their About page
| actually has the phrase _EURACTIV content is produced in full
| impartiality_ , a phrase whose laugability is a major BS
| marker. EURACTIV is not impartial and then refuse to clearly
| state their bias; they're dishonest from the very beginning.
|
| Unsurprisingly, the article simply repeats EU marketing speak
| and the facts in it are in the vein of _bathing in nuclear
| waste will kill cancer cells_.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| The article lists everything the law does. It doesn't list
| everything they wanted and didn't get because, as
| Journalists, they arent suppose to want anything and
| therefore cannot list their disappointments.
|
| Yes, the article is a bit sterile. Maybe politico.eu will
| have a better writeup for people interested in the politics
| more than the law. But to not see that the guy you're
| agreeing with is drowning in opinion is almost comically
| lacking in self-reflection.
|
| FWIW, on the merits, this is 100 % good for the
| consumer/citizen. There is nothing in it for companies,
| except that it maybe could have ended worse. It isn't a
| compromise where each side got a bit of what they wanted. It
| started out with ideas of completely fucking over tech
| companies, now it graciously settled on just mildly tying
| them down and setting a bit of their clothes on fire.
|
| But I'm sure that will be entirely lost on the ,,yet-again-
| these-corrupt-sellout-manufactured-consent-soros-etc-etc-
| crowd"
| anfogoat wrote:
| > _But to not see that the guy you're agreeing with is
| drowning in opinion is almost comically lacking in self-
| reflection._
|
| While I find Breyer's text infinitely more valuable than
| that of the suggested supposedly impartial Fact Reciter,
| I'm not in lockstep with his position, and most
| importantly, I have no trouble separating his opinions from
| facts. On lack of self-reflection, I don't feel like I'm
| particularly guilty of it but then again I guess I
| wouldn't. I did read the EURACTIV About page and it
| wouldn't surprise me if something rubbed off of there.
| Whether it did or not, as far as lack of self-reflection
| goes it's a prime exhibition.
|
| An impartial publication is a work of fiction. Claim you
| are one? You cosplay one.
|
| > _FWIW, on the merits, this is 100 % good for the consumer
| /citizen. There is nothing in it for companies, except that
| it maybe could have ended worse. It isn't a compromise
| where each side got a bit of what they wanted. It started
| out with ideas of completely fucking over tech companies,
| now it graciously settled on just mildly tying them down
| and setting a bit of their clothes on fire._
|
| It's the EU once again fiddling with the Internet. It
| doesn't really matter what the marginal benefits are in the
| short term if you don't trust them with that power to begin
| with and believe their unending need to make use of it will
| eventually ruin the Internet. Drop the _citizen_ and I 'm
| with you.
| deutschepost wrote:
| I agree, that the results are not as bad as stated in the
| article. But it is still way less, than initially drafted. And
| it would not have come to this, if the affected companies
| didn't heavily lobbied to water it down.[1]
|
| [1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/22/google-facebook-apple-
| eu-l...
| KarlKemp wrote:
| Yes, but: industry avoided worse. This is a pro-consumer bill
| in its entirety. The headline here just feeds into mindless
| cynicism.
| Vespasian wrote:
| True and it's very important to have that discussion.
|
| However, whenever a law gets passed at least one side is less
| than enthusiastic and, at least for me, it's helpful to get a
| first impression from a (more) neutral source which didn't
| take part in the drafting process.
|
| After that I take a look at what the involved parties are
| saying about the new legislation and how it came to be.
| deutschepost wrote:
| Yeah, thats fair.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-23 23:01 UTC)