

What is wrong with the GDPR and the ePrivacy directive? The only problem I see is that they don’t go far enough (online tracking, for example)


What is wrong with the GDPR and the ePrivacy directive? The only problem I see is that they don’t go far enough (online tracking, for example)
If it works it works. You mathematicians just don’t understand the pragmatics. What is tech debt?
The password you have chosen is already in use by a different user ([email protected]). Please choose a different password.
I asked ChatGPT and it says he still needs his glasses while not in costume. So that settles this debate.
/s


Sure. For the fact that many jurisdictions outside of the US also consider freedom of speech and other human rights to apply between private parties: this is called “horizontal effect” and covered extensively in case law by e.g. the European Court of Human Rights. See also this chapter for an international comparison and this paper for a European perspective.
As for the specific rules in the EU for platforms: Article 17 of the Digital Services Act requires that users who are banned or shadowbanned from any platform are provided with specific information of what rule they broke, which they can then appeal internally or in court. Article 34 and 35 requires very large platforms (such as X) to take broad measures to protect i.a. the users’ freedom of speech.
More to the point, one person who was shadowbanned by X in a similar way used the DSA and won in court
(Edited to add the last paragraph)


*in the US.
The EU recognizes that human right such as freedom of speech also should be protected against private parties. Platforms can’t ban or restrict you for arbitrary reasons here.


I’m of the opinion that having a lot of money shouldn’t, in fact, allow you to do what you want. No person should have this power to do mass censorship, not in the last place because manipulating online discourse means manipulating a fundamental aspect of democracy.
Musk specifically is meddling in elections, both in the EU and the US by e.g. bribing voters. Turning the dials of the algorithm lets him do this even more effectively.
But the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost… if you keep it a secret! Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?
So what is the reason for doing it that way?


And you think that’s going to happen by removing the trashcans?


As long as it’s not an exit node, nobody will be able to tell what the traffic is. It’s all encrypted including the metadata.


That fact that you think “idealistic version of early US” is a compliment is very telling.


Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US. You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement. You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions. You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.
Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.


Turns out when Zuckerbot was talking about “allowing more speech on the platform”, he just meant more slurs.


“May be on shaky legal ground”
The law clearly states that Tiktok is banned and should be made inaccessible. The president cannot unilaterally change the law. They even got a lawyer to explain this to them.
Regardless of what you think of the ban, there can be no doubt about the fact that this is what the law says. No matter what Trump claims. If journalists show this level of misregard for truth and the rule of law, things are going to become much worse.
Remember how the Titan sub used a game controller and everyone called them out? I think I’d still feel safer.


Putin couldn’t care less about the support from some random programmers. Be realistic, what do you expect them to do? Take up arms? Protest and get imprisoned? Vote in the sham elections?
Targeting random civilians in hopes of political change is the strategy of terrorists.
Yes, the GDPR covers almost everything you do with personal data. That is the point. As long as you’re being respectful to data subjects the GDPR is surprisingly mild.
You’re the one claiming the government is regulating tech too much, below an article about Apple making that same claim. And when pressed about specifics, you brand the entire thing as off-topic.
It is very much on topic, you just don’t want to provide an argument.