3 ms·

I recommend this article https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-institutions-reach-agreement-on-digital-services-act/ https://www.euractiv.com/section

I recommend this article https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-institutions-reach-agreement-on-digital-services-act/ 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.

deutschepost 4y ago
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-lobbying-report/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/22/google-facebook-apple-eu-l...
- arlcode 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Yeah, thats fair.
- KarlKemp 4y ago
  Yes, but: industry avoided worse. This is a pro-consumer bill in its entirety. The headline here just feeds into mindless cynicism.
anfogoat 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago

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-lobbying-report/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/22/google-facebook-apple-eu-l...

arlcode 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Yeah, thats fair.
KarlKemp 4y ago
Yes, but: industry avoided worse. This is a pro-consumer bill in its entirety. The headline here just feeds into mindless cynicism.

anfogoat 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  > 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.