• Lumidaub@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Thank you for this bit of wisdom. Why did you feel the need to share it here?

          • Lumidaub@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            ·
            2 months ago

            You do with your laws whatever the fuck you want. We have different approaches to things and if US based companies don’t like that, they’ll have to find somewhere else to sell their stuff instead of relying on your government to help them bully other countries. Capitalism, small government, and all that.

          • REDACTED@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh no. Imagine seeing pro-Trump ad, but the “paid by” reads “Vladimir Putin”. I mean, I get why Trump does not like transparency, but this law isn’t all that bad, includes stuff like having basic fundamental rights in ToS and being able to contact the company.

            Good for people, bad for authoritarians and corporations.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 months ago

    … which Washington says stifles free speech

    No that’s not it. Washington couldn’t care kess

    and imposes costs on U.S. tech companies,

    Ding ding ding!

  • Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Oh look, the tech companies sent a shit eating emissary to tell us how to live our lives so as to exploit us better…

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yet Trump has made combating censorship - particularly what he sees as the stifling of conservative voices…

    including hate speech and child sexual abuse material.

    To be very clear.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    What a disgusting pigfucking punk this piece of shit turned out to be. When he was a Senator he was “just” awful. Goddamn I hope The Fates have something cooking up for him.

  • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hope the EU becomes nationalistic in response to this ‘outreach’. It is clear that Dogey America intends to violate Europe on every level.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    remember they tried to do this in south america, tried to start a coup and they were expelled. It’s easy to expel this diplomats and request new ones

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lula won with 50.5%. That is how close they were to being enslaved again. It is not easy.

  • NebLem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lazy question as I haven’t followed the DSA closely and Wikipedia seems very surface level - does it do stupid privacy invasive crap and forget small sites exist like the UK’s Online Safety Act?

    • Anafabula@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The Wikipedia page doesn’t sound too bad, but IANAL.
      The regulation linked from the wiki article only includes the word “age” three times and actually states:

      […] this prohibition should not lead the provider of the online platform to maintain, acquire or process more personal data than it already has in order to assess if the recipient of the service is a minor. Thus, this obligation should not incentivize providers of online platforms to collect the age of the recipient of the service prior to their use.

      Haven’t looked at it any more than that, but it sounds like it’s already been in effect for ~2 years?

  • BigDiction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m ignoring the US politics for a moment…

    If I flag a comment on Lemmy for abuse, breaking community rules, or other reasons, do you y’all think I am individually owed a response from the mod team on whether the content stays approved, or was removed, that includes the specific criteria behind the decision?

    That’s what the DSA requires among many other requirements.

    • Technopagan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      IANAL but the DSA says nothing about requirements to inform reporters on a community moderation level. It is only concerned with illegal content and this cannot be simply flagged. It has to be a sufficiently substantiated explanation reported to the instance legal contact.

      • BigDiction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Also NAL and different sizes of platforms have different obligations. Could be wrong that the scenario I described applies to Lemmy.

  • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    What tech ? We have ASML and it s great but other than that in what tech are we leader ? We had nuclear turbine before but macron sold them and I can t find any other one