> 1. It puts Bluesky on notice that they need to watch their numbers can't be as they haven't reached out to Bluesky, can't put someone on notice without commu

> 1. It puts Bluesky on notice that they need to watch their numbers can't be as they haven't reached out to Bluesky, can't put someone on notice without communicating with them this articles seems to be based on newpapers doing "press requests" not any EU institution initiating actions, some parts can outright be read as "what is Bsky, we should find out if it is relevant if we get press requests about it, where is their office again?" > 2. It preempts accusations of unfair application of the rules I'm not sure where such accusations should come from. I don't thing any related EU regulatory organizations care about what people in the US thing about supposedly unfair treatment of X compared to Bsky. > 3. It reminds Blusky that if they trade internationally they need to "do as Romans do". which only makes sense if they communicate with them but the only communication flow seem to have been the Financial Times asking some regulators. So I don't think so.