it goes further than that. the technomancers blogpost gets a lot of the actual requirements completely wrong (for example the supposed requirement for third-par

it goes further than that. the technomancers blogpost gets a lot of the actual requirements completely wrong (for example the supposed requirement for third-party or government "licensing". Which is nowhere in the Act). What really frustrated me about this whole discussion is seeing some SV heavyweights quoting this article uncritically and screaming about how stupid the EU is again, while referring to supposed requirements that are nowhere to be found in the act. I would assume these people have access to the best information in the world, yet they don't seem to have had any of their staff actually read the draft. :/ FWIW, I quickly wrote up some of my thoughts about what the technomancer's article gets wrong at the time, but then didn't get around to polish and publish them. If you're interested, here are my notes: https://gist.github.com/heidekrueger/bdee0268ecdad5f6b56f557b3d86cf31 https://gist.github.com/heidekrueger/bdee0268ecdad5f6b56f557... Edit: I want to emphasize that I DO share some of the concerns that the blogpost raises about the current draft of the act. I just wish we could have a meaningful discussion about it rather than namecalling and fearmongering.