EU could reach deal on antitrust Digital Services Act by June

Posted:
in General Discussion
Negotiations with countries over the European Union's Digital Services Act could be concluded by the end of June, it is believed, talks that can bring in a new law forcing Apple and tech giants to manage their behavior in a number of areas.




Since its introduction by the European Commission in December 2020, the Digital Services Act has been discussed by European lawmakers as a way to coerce tech multinationals into policing their platforms. If companies fail to do so, they could be fined as much as 6% of their global turnover.

Specifically, the Digital Services Act takes aim at illegal and harmful content, with platform holders required to take such items down in a prompt manner. This includes online marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, digital storefronts like the App Store, and other online services.

To bring the proposal into law, it has to reach a deal with EU member countries, which can be a long process. However, Reuters reports that it could happen within a relatively short timeframe.

EU lawmaker Christel Schaldemose, who is steering negotiations, said on Monday "I am optimistic we can make a deal before the end of June."

In terms of the negotiations themselves, Schaldemose said lawmakers are keen to increase how much platform-owners have to accomplish in blocking content, including the banning of so-called dark patterns, and to keep regulating companies based on where they are registered.

On the dark patterns, she adds "We go into the business models of platforms. The Council is not so willing to go that far," indicating there's a difference of opinion to be worked on. "The Council wants the ban only for online marketplaces. Parliament wants a ban on all platforms."

Lawmakers are also keen to ban targeted advertising for minors, as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs.

The Digital Services Act was introduced at the same time as the Digital Markets Act, which aims to increase competition. The measures include forcing Apple and Google to allow users to uninstall preinstalled apps on devices, eliminating self-preferencing in search results, and more transparency over advertising metrics.

The progress of both the DSA and DMA slowed in late 2021, prompted by parliamentary squabbles over what services are affected, and how much by. Currently the DMA lags behind the DSA in the process.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    I’m a huge Apple fan, I’ve been using nothing else since I grew up and would never trade my MacBook Pro for a Windows machine, or my iPhone for an android device. But on some level I am wondering if the companies should become that large and insanely rich?
    edited February 2022 williamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 15
    hriw-annon@xs4all.nl[email protected] Posts: 61unconfirmed, member
    Regulation tends to benefit the big players, those that can afford to pay for a chief compliance officer and staff.
    Regulation makes the price of entry into a market higher.
    Those that are already there become stronger.
    williamlondonJWSCbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 3 of 15
    Regulation tends to benefit the big players, those that can afford to pay for a chief compliance officer and staff.
    Regulation makes the price of entry into a market higher.
    Those that are already there become stronger.
    So, what? No regulations at all?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 4 of 15
    Regulation tends to benefit the big players, those that can afford to pay for a chief compliance officer and staff.
    Regulation makes the price of entry into a market higher.
    Those that are already there become stronger.
    Libertarians: "The free market will regulate itself!" lolololol


    williamlondon
    iu.jpeg 86.7K
  • Reply 5 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.

    This contemptible and loathsome act should never see the light if day.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    hriw-annon@xs4all.nl[email protected] Posts: 61unconfirmed, member
    swat671 said:
    Regulation tends to benefit the big players, those that can afford to pay for a chief compliance officer and staff.
    Regulation makes the price of entry into a market higher.
    Those that are already there become stronger.
    So, what? No regulations at all?
    There will be regulations whether we like it or not. We can hope some will be more good than bad. (I'm not counting on it)
    I'm just floating the idea that those that think more regulation will make Big Tech less powerful might be disappointed with the results.
    JWSC
  • Reply 8 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."

    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!
    williamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 15
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."
    Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.
    JWSC said:
    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

    It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."
    Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.
    JWSC said:
    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

    It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

    MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

    We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

    I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.
    williamlondonbshank
  • Reply 11 of 15
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."
    Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.
    JWSC said:
    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

    It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

    MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

    We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

    I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.

    No one is being asked to be an arbiter of misinformation, so I have no idea what you're so angry about.  This legislation has nothing to do with identifying misinformation, it has to do with the timely removal of illegal and harmful content, and some restrictions on data used for advertising, and additional transparency.

    There's some other stuff too, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what's in the Act before ranting any more, or you'll do yourself some damage: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en


  • Reply 12 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."
    Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.
    JWSC said:
    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

    It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

    MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

    We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

    I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.

    No one is being asked to be an arbiter of misinformation, so I have no idea what you're so angry about.  This legislation has nothing to do with identifying misinformation, it has to do with the timely removal of illegal and harmful content, and some restrictions on data used for advertising, and additional transparency.

    There's some other stuff too, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what's in the Act before ranting any more, or you'll do yourself some damage: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en
    Thank you for the link. I read it in It’s entirely. It provides me no comfort whatsoever.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Reply 13 of 15
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."
    Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.
    JWSC said:
    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

    It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

    MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

    We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

    I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.

    No one is being asked to be an arbiter of misinformation, so I have no idea what you're so angry about.  This legislation has nothing to do with identifying misinformation, it has to do with the timely removal of illegal and harmful content, and some restrictions on data used for advertising, and additional transparency.

    There's some other stuff too, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what's in the Act before ranting any more, or you'll do yourself some damage: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en
    Thank you for the link. I read it in It’s entirely. It provides me no comfort whatsoever.
    Anything in particular, or are you just determined to be upset?  

    What's your angle?  Nothing should be moderated on the internet?
  • Reply 14 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."
    Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.
    JWSC said:
    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

    It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

    MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

    We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

    I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.

    No one is being asked to be an arbiter of misinformation, so I have no idea what you're so angry about.  This legislation has nothing to do with identifying misinformation, it has to do with the timely removal of illegal and harmful content, and some restrictions on data used for advertising, and additional transparency.

    There's some other stuff too, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what's in the Act before ranting any more, or you'll do yourself some damage: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en
    Thank you for the link. I read it in It’s entirely. It provides me no comfort whatsoever.
    Anything in particular, or are you just determined to be upset?  

    What's your angle?  Nothing should be moderated on the internet?
    Short answer, I would prefer not to hand over the keys to powerful and vested interests so that they alone can moderate what I choose to see on the interwebs.  Inevitably, they end up protecting themselves and not the rest of us.  Where someone is attempting to incite violence then it can be reported and law enforcement can take it from there. End.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 15 of 15
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    crowley said:
    JWSC said:
    They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 
    That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 
    No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.
    JWSC said:
    They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.
    I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.
    Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."
    Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.
    JWSC said:
    And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

    It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

    MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

    We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

    I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.

    No one is being asked to be an arbiter of misinformation, so I have no idea what you're so angry about.  This legislation has nothing to do with identifying misinformation, it has to do with the timely removal of illegal and harmful content, and some restrictions on data used for advertising, and additional transparency.

    There's some other stuff too, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what's in the Act before ranting any more, or you'll do yourself some damage: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en
    Thank you for the link. I read it in It’s entirely. It provides me no comfort whatsoever.
    Anything in particular, or are you just determined to be upset?  

    What's your angle?  Nothing should be moderated on the internet?
    Short answer, I would prefer not to hand over the keys to powerful and vested interests so that they alone can moderate what I choose to see on the interwebs.  Inevitably, they end up protecting themselves and not the rest of us.  Where someone is attempting to incite violence then it can be reported and law enforcement can take it from there. End.
    Yeah, I'd stay off the internet then.  Powerful and vested interests already have the keys.  I think you've rather missed the point of the legislation.
    fastasleep
Sign In or Register to comment.