3 ms·
The issue is that these laws apply to sites that are accessible in the EU which is the default state of a site on the internet, and personally I would like to a
by charcircuit 11mo ago
The issue is that these laws apply to sites that are accessible in the EU which is the default state of a site on the internet, and personally I would like to avoid a balkanization of the internet. I would like to see the US government protect our websites from the EU's laws. Especially when it involves a US citizen (eg. taking a US citizens data).
- orwin 11mo agoX could just refuse to pay European advertisers and not allow EU user to pay for its premium version. Here, problem fixed.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago> The issue is that these laws apply to sites that are accessible in the EU which is the default state of a site on the internet It doesn't though, it applies those laws if the entity in question happen to also be slurping up a bunch of user data and selling/using it for various purpose, something which requires intent and active work to do. If they instead didn't do those things, these laws wouldn't apply to them in the first place. Random American HN users just having a website public on the internet without perverse tracking has nothing to worry about, and does not have to care about GDPR, EU rules or much else.
- neverrroot 11mo agoYou are really mixing things here, tbh, not sure whether in good faith.
- ampersandwhich 11mo agoI see where this concern comes from. But I think people overinterpret the EU’s legislative agenda by focusing on which companies get fined. Since American firms dominate the global tech market, they naturally end up in the crosshairs more often. That can look like a racket if you disagree with the laws, especially given the size of the penalties. I think a more mundane explanation, which I personally subscribe to, is that Europeans have different priorities than Americans. They don’t want the same trade-offs, and they’re willing to make certain business models economically unviable if they believe those models are harmful or in bad taste. US companies are disproportionately affected because they don't share those values. First amendment, etc. From the outside, this can create the impression of "hidden motives": the stated reasons sound unconvincing, the effects fall heavily on US companies, and so people infer that the EU is targeting Americans. But really, I think we're just different. If US laws disproportionately burdened EU citizens, I’d expect Europeans to be equally upset. It's only natural. I'm sure few people in Europe would be thrilled to find out that GDPR doesn't apply to ChatGPT because they got involved in some copyright lawsuit in New York. That said, there's always a mix of motivations. I'm personally not a fan of other EU initiatives, like the one on encryption, but I think GDPR and DSA mostly mirror what the average João wants. I'm not sure most people care that much about the geopolitics.
- 1718627440 11mo agoI don't think the EU would have issues with the site not using data from EU citizens without blocking access in any way. The issue is really the the X does want to have "costumers" from the EU and this will fall under EU jurisdiction.
- StopDisinfo910 11mo agoThe US government and its cronies use American social media as propaganda plateforms to saw disinformation and push counter factual narratives serving their interests. They have specifically targeted influencing elections in the recent past. That's information war. We should probably ban on sight but as we are free countries, we put in place a regulatory framework and let the courts do their work. You don't want balkanization of the internet? Tell your government to stop using it as a weapon.
- nicbou 11mo agoFrom our perspective, it’s good to see the EU protect its citizens from US tech practices.