3 ms·

That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. Requiring every company to prove why something us suitable for their mark

That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. Requiring every company to prove why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to. That's some seriously distopian shit in my opinion.

_visgean 3y ago
> Requiring every company to price why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control they dont require every company. Just the largest in this segment.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Is that limitation specifically defined in the law? I.e. does the law granting power to require this spell out how segments are defined and that only the largest by a specified metric can be regulated this way? Short of that its just a current norm for how the law is enforced. Nothing stops the next regulator from expanding that power.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_online_platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_onl... ?
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      My understanding of the DSA is that its focused on content moderation and disclosure of how content algorithms work. Whether the content is addictive really isn't directly related, that's a measure of how users respond to the content rather than how its fed to them. That said, this app, like so many other social media apps, is trash. People should be choosing not to use it regardless of regulations.
      - yencabulator 3y ago
        I think it comes down to this: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065#d1e3291-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... 1. Providers of online platforms accessible to minors shall put in place appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security of minors, on their service.
fransje26 3y ago
> That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. That's a heavy burden that we enforce on many other consumer products. That's why we have certification processes in place, quality testing and compliance testing. From airplanes, to cars, to bikes, to helmets, to food, to medication, to toys, to appliances, to paints and chemicals, etc.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  We don't have similar requirements for software unless its related to regulated industries like healthcare. Its all well and good if the idea here is that people would like more regulation, but that regulation doesn't exist today and the EU move here seems like overreach.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    Maybe because software weren't considered as dangerous and addictive as they are now back then? Regulations evolve because societies evolve.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Sure, but again we should write, review, and approve those regulations before trying to enforce them. In this case, it would appear that enforcement is evolving while regulations aren't being changed.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        I think the regulations have changed already. In that case it is called the Digital Service Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act
        _heimdall 3y ago
        If I'm not mistaken the DSA is focused on content moderation and how content algorithms work. This article describes EU concerns having to do with whether or not the app is addictive, I'm not really sure if that falls under how the algorithm works so much as how users respond to it. That said, this app and so many other social media apps are trash. People should be choosing not to use them regardless of regulations.
seszett 3y ago
> That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. Isn't it what the CE marking means on physical products though? It means the manufacturer claims the product is conform to regulation, which presumably includes "not harmful to the intended users". While CE marking can be a self-declaration depending on the type of product (some products require third-party control) at any moment each EU state can check it, and in any case a control process has to be documented. The parent comment just wishes to apply the same to non-physical products, which doesn't strike me as extremely heavy or unreasonable.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Sure, CE regulations could always be expanded but that doesn't exist today so it really isn't relevant for why the EU would be forcing one specific company to justify their new app.
bingbingbing777 3y ago
> government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to It's so dystopian that people can't access weapons or poison from their local shop, with no limitations.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Plenty of household chemicals are poisonous, they just aren't marketed for that use.
afavour 3y ago
I feel like we’re approaching a level where absolutely any government regulation is seen as “dystopian”. We absolutely have regulations like this already. I’d almost argue there are more consumer products subject to regulation than not. For a more specific example, teens are not allowed to use gambling apps. I don’t see many people arguing that is tyrannical government overreach. Here, TikTok is creating an addictive app that offers you monetary rewards for watching videos and completing menial tasks. It sounds more like employment than leisure activity, why shouldn’t we interrogate the suitability of something like that? Why give these social media companies, which have proven themselves untrustworthy time and time again, the benefit of the doubt?
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Gambling was already regulated though, extending that to digital gambling isn't a stretch. There aren't regulations that I'm aware of that fit for specifically what the EU is doing here. We can always add more regulations, though there's an official process to it. There is a line though, and while I absolutely see value in some regulations given how complex we've made society, a government with full authority to deem what is and is not appropriate for any specific group of people is extremely heavy handed. I don't actually want to give social media companies the benefit of the doubt. People shouldn't use that trash and parents should be helping their kids decide if those apps are actually something they want to use. If people really see the value in that kind if app, though, we only avoid the problem rather than fix it by banning apps or limiting access from the top down.
  - afavour 3y ago
    > We can always add more regulations, though there's an official process to it. Right, I feel like ultimately this is a debate about what happens in that window. “There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, companies should be free to do what they wish while we craft regulation” vs “There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, we should heavily limit what companies can do while we craft regulation”
    - 3y ago

_visgean 3y ago

> Requiring every company to price why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control they dont require every company. Just the largest in this segment.

_heimdall 3y ago
Is that limitation specifically defined in the law? I.e. does the law granting power to require this spell out how segments are defined and that only the largest by a specified metric can be regulated this way? Short of that its just a current norm for how the law is enforced. Nothing stops the next regulator from expanding that power.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_online_platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Large_onl... ?
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    My understanding of the DSA is that its focused on content moderation and disclosure of how content algorithms work. Whether the content is addictive really isn't directly related, that's a measure of how users respond to the content rather than how its fed to them. That said, this app, like so many other social media apps, is trash. People should be choosing not to use it regardless of regulations.
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      I think it comes down to this: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065#d1e3291-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... 1. Providers of online platforms accessible to minors shall put in place appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security of minors, on their service.

fransje26 3y ago

> That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. That's a heavy burden that we enforce on many other consumer products. That's why we have certification processes in place, quality testing and compliance testing. From airplanes, to cars, to bikes, to helmets, to food, to medication, to toys, to appliances, to paints and chemicals, etc.

_heimdall 3y ago
We don't have similar requirements for software unless its related to regulated industries like healthcare. Its all well and good if the idea here is that people would like more regulation, but that regulation doesn't exist today and the EU move here seems like overreach.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Maybe because software weren't considered as dangerous and addictive as they are now back then? Regulations evolve because societies evolve.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Sure, but again we should write, review, and approve those regulations before trying to enforce them. In this case, it would appear that enforcement is evolving while regulations aren't being changed.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      I think the regulations have changed already. In that case it is called the Digital Service Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        If I'm not mistaken the DSA is focused on content moderation and how content algorithms work. This article describes EU concerns having to do with whether or not the app is addictive, I'm not really sure if that falls under how the algorithm works so much as how users respond to it. That said, this app and so many other social media apps are trash. People should be choosing not to use them regardless of regulations.

seszett 3y ago

> That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before. Isn't it what the CE marking means on physical products though? It means the manufacturer claims the product is conform to regulation, which presumably includes "not harmful to the intended users". While CE marking can be a self-declaration depending on the type of product (some products require third-party control) at any moment each EU state can check it, and in any case a control process has to be documented. The parent comment just wishes to apply the same to non-physical products, which doesn't strike me as extremely heavy or unreasonable.

_heimdall 3y ago
Sure, CE regulations could always be expanded but that doesn't exist today so it really isn't relevant for why the EU would be forcing one specific company to justify their new app.

bingbingbing777 3y ago

> government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to It's so dystopian that people can't access weapons or poison from their local shop, with no limitations.

_heimdall 3y ago
Plenty of household chemicals are poisonous, they just aren't marketed for that use.

afavour 3y ago

I feel like we’re approaching a level where absolutely any government regulation is seen as “dystopian”. We absolutely have regulations like this already. I’d almost argue there are more consumer products subject to regulation than not. For a more specific example, teens are not allowed to use gambling apps. I don’t see many people arguing that is tyrannical government overreach. Here, TikTok is creating an addictive app that offers you monetary rewards for watching videos and completing menial tasks. It sounds more like employment than leisure activity, why shouldn’t we interrogate the suitability of something like that? Why give these social media companies, which have proven themselves untrustworthy time and time again, the benefit of the doubt?

_heimdall 3y ago
Gambling was already regulated though, extending that to digital gambling isn't a stretch. There aren't regulations that I'm aware of that fit for specifically what the EU is doing here. We can always add more regulations, though there's an official process to it. There is a line though, and while I absolutely see value in some regulations given how complex we've made society, a government with full authority to deem what is and is not appropriate for any specific group of people is extremely heavy handed. I don't actually want to give social media companies the benefit of the doubt. People shouldn't use that trash and parents should be helping their kids decide if those apps are actually something they want to use. If people really see the value in that kind if app, though, we only avoid the problem rather than fix it by banning apps or limiting access from the top down.
- afavour 3y ago
  > We can always add more regulations, though there's an official process to it. Right, I feel like ultimately this is a debate about what happens in that window. “There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, companies should be free to do what they wish while we craft regulation” vs “There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, we should heavily limit what companies can do while we craft regulation”
  - 3y ago