3 ms·
That is hardly unique to DMA. Law is rife with things requiring interpretation. See, for example, the reasonable person standard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik
by thfuran 2y ago
That is hardly unique to DMA. Law is rife with things requiring interpretation. See, for example, the reasonable person standard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
- threeseed 2y agoNot arguing it is unique to DMA. But my point is that you can't say "just comply with the law" when compliance has been a much more interactive process.
- joe_the_user 2y agoYes, and laws involve intent. A lot of laws "when you do a thing that has a result and you intend that result to happen, you're guilty of creating the result". It doesn't matter the thing you do. If you invent some new way of killing someone, and kill someone with it, you're guilty of murder even if the never heard of this particular way of killing someone, etc. In Apple's case, the edict was to create competition by opening up the app stores. Apple "opened" its app store in a way that failed to actually allow competition and so it is subject to the fine. This is exactly why laws work this way - to prevent what is now called "gaming" the system.
- darklion 2y agoThe edict was intentionally vague and overbroad. It’s a law that establishes no measurable compliance guidelines, while providing absolutely no limitations on what the EU can decide counts as a violation retroactively. It’s basically “We’re not going to tell you what we want you to do. You need to guess what we want you to do, and fuck you if you guess wrong.”