EU EU's regulatory iceberg bears down on tech's big ships - Observation: Is it okay to hate everyone on all sides of this?

EU's regulatory iceberg bears down on tech's big ships / https://archive.ph/3C7BA
Ashley Gold

Ashley Gold

Illustration of the EU flag with downward facing cursor arrows in place of stars
Illustration: Annelise Capossela/Axios

Final European Parliament approval of sweeping, stringent tech regulations Tuesday put European regulators and tech-platform giants on a slow but inevitable collision course.

Driving the news: Europe's two new laws — the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) — place tough constraints on how big tech standard-bearers like Apple, Amazon, Alphabet and Meta handle competition and online content.

Why it matters: U.S. efforts to pass similar laws have so far failed to gain traction. That leaves the EU's rules as the most significant efforts yet to rein in the companies' power, which critics charge has grown at the expense of smaller rivals, users' freedom and privacy, and the reliability of online information.

Details: The DMA lays out obligations and punishments for digital service "gatekeepers" who break the law's rules for promoting competition, as Axios previously reported.

The law says these companies must obtain "explicit consent" to target ads based on personal data.
It requires interoperability between messaging platforms like Apple's iMessage and Meta's WhatsApp.
It mandates that large platforms let users select a browser, search engine and personal voice assistant of their choice.

The DSA puts more responsibility on large platforms to police and take down illegal content, with fines if they fail to comply.

It generally states that whatever is considered illegal speech in Europe should also be considered illegal speech online.

Here are some of the laws' likely impacts on users:

Apple will be required to let iPhone users in the EU to make purchases outside of its official App Store via third-party app stores.
Tech giants won't be allowed to give their own their own products, apps, or services preferential treatment within the EU.
Companies will have to get consumer consent before moving the personal data of EU citizens around.
Through the DSA, companies will have more obligations to take down and report illegal content in the EU.

The penalties: Companies face a fine of up to 10% of annual global turnover for violations of the DMA and 6% for violations of the DSA.

"In the event of serious and repeated breaches, national courts can go as far as a ban on operating on European territory," Thierry Breton, EU commissioner for the internal market, wrote.

What they're saying: " "With size comes responsibility — as a big platform, there are things you must do and things you cannot do," EU executive vice president Margrethe Vestager said in a statement.

"We're turning the page on 'too big to care' platforms," Breton wrote. "The same predictable rules will apply, everywhere in the EU, for our 450 million citizens, bringing everyone a safer and fairer digital space."

Tech firms lobbied hard against both laws, especially on provisions around tracking-based advertising.

Apple said the EU requirement that it allow "sideloading" — the ability to download and use apps from sources other than its own App Store — would have devastating consequences for users' security.

Yes, but: Experts expect implementation and enforcement of these laws to take additional time and demand more personnel resources and money from the EU, and critics of the laws say European officials will come up short of what they need.

In a blog post, Breton detailed enforcement, saying teams from the European Commission will "supervise" large platforms, and platforms covered under the new laws must have a "legal representative" in Europe to call if there's a compliance question. The largest platforms will pay a fee "to cover the additional costs needed for their supervision."
European officials will also set up a "European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency" to help enforce the DSA.

What to watch: Tech companies are likely to try to abide by the letter of the new laws while changing their products and practices as little as possible.

One strategy: they could offer DSA- and DMA-compliant versions of their platforms in Europe, and keep their offerings the same elsewhere.

What's next: The Council of the European Union will adopt the laws, a formality expected by fall, and beginning then their provisions will kick in on a schedule that stretches through 2024.
 
CwRAJs7WgAEEvIy.jpg
 
Apple will be required to let iPhone users in the EU to make purchases outside of its official App Store via third-party app stores.
Tech giants won't be allowed to give their own their own products, apps, or services preferential treatment within the EU.
Companies will have to get consumer consent before moving the personal data of EU citizens around.
Through the DSA, companies will have more obligations to take down and report illegal content in the EU.

this kind of treatment has been a long time coming given how brazenly the tech hegemony pushes its limits at everyone else's expense. smartphones are a fucking horrendous platform because of this, they're made to be tyrannical little black boxes that demand every form of assent from you just for access and give you back, what? a bunch of ad-driven "apps" that are just glorified web pages that do stupid shit? the fact that it's an open secret that smartphone providers intentionally push updates that reduce your battery life, without giving you the option to decline, and then make it so the phone is likely to brick if you try to remove or replace the battery, is absolutely insane to me. they cost a fortune, listen to everything you say, track you everywhere you go, and record every interaction you have with them, even while they're supposedly turned off, tie you to one or more subscription services to even be usable, and on top of all that, Google and Apple are allowed to remotely sabotage your phone until you're forced to buy a new one just to maintain its usability, while denying you any kind of access to the hardware or software that would give you some measure of control over these things. I hate to do the "mods?" thing but come the fuck on.

but of course because it's the fucking EU they have to throw in their precious speech "protections" because God forbid somebody say something disagreeable on the internet. citizen, your government cares, so we will protect you from the tyranny of these international megacorporations that rule nearly every aspect of your life without being answerable to your discontent in any way. however, if you make a Holocaust joke you will be imprisoned for not less than six months without a jury trial. BTW you can toss in a token vote in our international elections but our metagovernment is not ultimately answerable to you or any politicians you may elect. America has shitty problems but I'd rather eat my own asshole raw than live in any of the brutally pozzed countries in the EU
 
Meant to note this before:
It generally states that whatever is considered illegal speech in Europe should also be considered illegal speech online.
As in, will it force Plebbit, Twitter, etc., to become even more restrictive?
 
Meant to note this before:

As in, will it force Plebbit, Twitter, etc., to become even more restrictive?
Define force? Maximally if the firms in question have personnel and property under European jurisdiction they have general liability exposure for criminal activity. If they are foreign and have something like a forum-selection clause in their TOS, regulations like this are toothless. The most they can do is DNS/ISP level bans that are readily circumvented. If it is a paid service locals care about, even that can come at a heavy political cost.

Smaller operations that couldn't give a shit about Europe will generally do one of three things: lie about compliance and refuse to cooperate with interloping foreign authorities, simply be impossible for foreign customers to interface with, or in some cases they will get spiteful and make it a point to wipe their ass with tyrannical laws that do not even have jurisdiction over them. All of these are cheaper and easier than opting into Eurofag struggle sessions.
 
Define force? Maximally if the firms in question have personnel and property under European jurisdiction they have general liability exposure for criminal activity. If they are foreign and have something like a forum-selection clause in their TOS, regulations like this are toothless. The most they can do is DNS/ISP level bans that are readily circumvented. If it is a paid service locals care about, even that can come at a heavy political cost.

Smaller operations that couldn't give a shit about Europe will generally do one of three things: lie about compliance and refuse to cooperate with interloping foreign authorities, simply be impossible for foreign customers to interface with, or in some cases they will get spiteful and make it a point to wipe their ass with tyrannical laws that do not even have jurisdiction over them. All of these are cheaper and easier than opting into Eurofag struggle sessions.
A ton of san Francisco tech companies complied with GDPR despite not having assets in europe. Some of them are weirdly religious about european laws and europe in general.
 
The DMA actually looks pretty good, and might have some effect on breaking down walled garden shit.

Unfortunately it's balanced out by the DSA being a typical anti free speech hurt feefees attack.

Well in USA you had corrupt tyrants we in Europe have Ideologues now you have corrupt idealogues.
 
Monopolies need regulation like this. That or they need to be broken up. The only thing that has merit is apple's security concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otterly
Yes that about sums it up.
Meant to note this before:

As in, will it force Plebbit, Twitter, etc., to become even more restrictive?
Yes, stuff like holocaust denial is illegal in Germany so it’ll be illegal all over. The worry is that companies comply with the most restrictive rules all over.
A ton of san Francisco tech companies complied with GDPR despite not having assets in europe. Some of them are weirdly religious about european laws and europe in general.
GDPR has more good than bad, IMO. I only see it from the patient data perspective but from that angle at least it’s positive. I’m sure it has negatives too.
This one is a nightmare - what’s needed isn’t more regulation, we just need to use the antitrust and monopoly legislation that’s already there. These companies are bad becasue they’re too big and have no competition, and they are too intrusive into peoples data and rights. Adding more curbs on what people can say online doesn’t curb a monopoly it only strengthens the already rigid control they have.
Break them up. They’re too big.
 
GDPR has more good than bad, IMO. I only see it from the patient data perspective but from that angle at least it’s positive. I’m sure it has negatives too.
I see it from a data analyst/data manager perspective and its a pain in the ass to implement and there are gray areas. One dataset at a former employer takes about 24 hours to process removals and it's difficult to determine how successful the operation was due to how anonymized the data is. We had to create two lookup tables which essentially deanonymized the data by linking their app UUID with their anonymized id and then listed where all entries are of a specific ID. There are also annoying euros who go around requesting to delete everything. We had to go off app UUID if they didn't have an account. If they used the app on another device there would be a different id. That data would still be present and it would potentially run afoul of the law.
It is a very autistic law written by people who don't understand how data processing works on paper or electronically. Euros, mainly germans, downplay the effort and infrastructure needed to comply with the law and get assmad when a non-euro company blocks the EU due to the implementation cost, saying "if they won't comply, that says all you need to know about what they are doing with your data". I swear the terminally online simps for GDPR are just EU fanatics projecting inferiority complexes.
For medical I can see it somewhat working but it may be a shithow in the US with how healthcare laws shape data storage and processing. Did european countries not have something similar to HIPPA?
Adding more curbs on what people can say online doesn’t curb a monopoly it only strengthens the already rigid control they have.
Having only one or a few companies to regulate in a space is a lot easier than many. I think the government and corporations want their form of socialism where corporations have very close, line blurring, ties with the government and will implement policies politicians wouldn't have the votes for/would lose elections over. It happened with the Wuhan Flu and free speech. Corporations also sometimes support/sponsor increased regulation in their industry in order to increase the barrier to entry. A former Circuit City CEO went on record about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otterly
Did european countries not have something similar to HIPPA?
Yeah, we had plenty but it was a bit of a patchwork. Amd don’t forget that a lot of uk records are still paper based. GDPR caused absolute chaos when it was implemented - imagine something like a bio bank of samples where you’ve got tens of thousands of samples, and all the consents to use them are paper forms, over twenty years held at hundreds of site locations, and youve no way of contacting half of them becasue they left no contact details, but to use bio bank data you need to make sure you’re GDPR compliant. It was that kind of thing. To be honest people are just still finding out the implications but something overarching was needed as we shifted to electronic records, and I’ve seen data breaches be dealt with much better. Pros and cons I guess.
I can see it being a pain for processing . And yes, agree completely on the fusion of government and corporate. That’s dystopian as it gets.
 
I thought about mentioning paper records in the US but I think US law forced them to be digitized which aided in the destruction of the US' vast independent medical practices due to cost and the expansion of giant, politically connected, medical systems taking their place.
 
I mean is this even a competition? I see the EU regulators as basically 0.01% less corrupt than the EU Olympic Committee or the FIFA people. Or possibly 25% more corrupt since the sports people recently got semi-busted.
 
Define force? Maximally if the firms in question have personnel and property under European jurisdiction they have general liability exposure for criminal activity. If they are foreign and have something like a forum-selection clause in their TOS, regulations like this are toothless. The most they can do is DNS/ISP level bans that are readily circumvented. If it is a paid service locals care about, even that can come at a heavy political cost.
Almost 20 years ago, the EU took issue with Microsoft for some reason or another. (It might have been including Internet Explorer on Windows machines while not including any other browsers.) Microsoft dragged ass complying and was paying millions a *day* in EU fines.
 
A ton of san Francisco tech companies complied with GDPR despite not having assets in europe. Some of them are weirdly religious about european laws and europe in general.
Yeah it's called being buck broken and cucked. See the below example of Cuckmiester Supreme:
Almost 20 years ago, the EU took issue with Microsoft for some reason or another. (It might have been including Internet Explorer on Windows machines while not including any other browsers.) Microsoft dragged ass complying and was paying millions a *day* in EU fines.
Technically written policy and stated policy from executives was to comply with the law, while legally avoiding undue burden whenever possible. The wink-and-nod understanding being that certain people may be kept out of the loop so they can honestly say they maintained that directive. Meanwhile some "rogue" employee that couldn't give a fraction of turd about Europe or going there is the on-paper responsible party thumbing their nose at the law.

Microsoft kind of had no other option here than eat these fines. They were likely liable for significantly more and accepting certain mea culpas helped mitigate the existential threat they faced.
 
the last time EU bureucrats messed with internet laws, it ended up with every fucking website adding those stupid "this site uses cookies pls confirm you are ok with that" warnings that 99,9% of users dont care about or click whatever is the default option to get rid of. And for whatever fuckery they did (GDPR I think) some of the US websites simply said "we dont serve users in EU lol get fucked". Trully a great win for end users

Almost 20 years ago, the EU took issue with Microsoft for some reason or another.
They forced MS to sell Windows without Windows Media Player. That's it. Millions (I assume) in attorney fees and salaries to bureucrats pushing this, hundreds man-days of some court used to force MS to offer a version of windows virtually noone asked for, needed nor bought. Another great win for end users.
I legit hope that whatever stupid laws they pass now, the evil corpos will find a way to maliciously comply in away that won't change shit because fuck EU bureucrats more than fuck apple.

I see it from a data analyst/data manager perspective and its a pain in the ass to implement and there are gray areas.
Yeah, it was made without even a smallest consultation from anyone in IT industry. Imagine having 30 days worth of daily bakcup of database on tapes- now some faggot does th "remove me from your database" thing- it means we must remove him from the backups too. But the backups were not designed to have data changed directly, and the only way to actually do it is to restore the copy of database to a dummy environment, DELETE ONE FUCKING RECORD, and then back it to tape again. THEN DO IT 29 MORE TIMES. The process is insanely long and infuriating to do.

It mandates that large platforms let users select a browser, search engine and personal voice assistant of their choice.
lel they don;t mind that cellphones are now always listening to everything and sending that data to HQ, the only issue they have is that we should be able to choose which company will be spying on us (maybe several at once)
 
Last edited:
Back