Patrick Breyer is a member of the Pirate party which holds a minority position and isn't quite happy with the results. While their views are, of course, a valuable part of the discussion, they portray the DSA in a deliberately bad light.
I agree, that the results are not as bad as stated in the article. But it is still way less, than initially drafted. And it would not have come to this, if the affected companies didn't heavily lobbied to water it down.[1]
I know Breyer's agenda while ascertaining what EURACTIV's agenda is seems like year long endeavor. Plus their About page actually has the phrase EURACTIV content is produced in full impartiality, a phrase whose laugability is a major BS marker. EURACTIV is not impartial and then refuse to clearly state their bias; they're dishonest from the very beginning.
Unsurprisingly, the article simply repeats EU marketing speak and the facts in it are in the vein of bathing in nuclear waste will kill cancer cells.
Pirate Party needs to start learning from the alt-right and the the politicians with other totalitarian tendencies. Instead of maksimalist goals that "must be achieved at once or we are doomed", better find something analogous of "think of the children" instrument which is used by the bureaucrats to gain power and aim for gradual steps in a similar way that the alt-right is doing it. Marine Le Pen in France become a credible candidate by distancing herself from maximalist and extreme ambitions(that she probably still holds) and aim for issues that large number of people want addressed(not just elitist niches). Populism is fine, up to a point.
Equating the "Not everything that we wanted was implemented" with "We lost everything, they won" sounds toxic to me. It's also arrogant t believe that you have the perfect solution for everything, you are pure and all knowing when the others are corrupt and stupid.
I like having pirate parties as a voice but the I would never vote for them, they are extremist and maksimalist IMHO.
"Think of the children" is used to pre-emptively attack any opposition to what is being proposed, i.e. "you are against this? you don't care about children?". It is despised by privacy advocates and I wouldn't support any group who used a tactic like that.
I think you have mixed up the real idea behind "think of the children." It can be used as a fig leaf for things the politically powerful wish to do but are specifically unpopular. It can be used to do things that certain politicians want to do that the politically powerful are, as a class, indifferent to.
Where it doesn't work is to do things that are popular among the electorate but that the politically powerful are opposed to. No catchphrase will help you with that, unfortunately.
The Czech Pirate Party, now in government, has basically abandoned its focus on digital topics and concentrates on power, lawmaking and who is going to get which seat on what ministry.
A huge disappointment. Their once-core positions are now good for lip service only. Even the Pirate Party Forum (an open discussion forum) is now basically concentrated on power politics and discussions about such important agendas have atrophied.
You are projecting, the update is not so defeatist. It starts with listing achievements, then says that overall the new document does not deserve the name of 'digital constitution' and an opportunity was wasted.
Not the opportunity. More will come and I got an impression that PP will keep fighting. I would vote for PP if I could.
So the result here is going to be even more content/account bans without possibility of complaint on all digital platforms? And inability for Google competitors to enter the market because they can't afford a massive AI autibanning system to comply with requirement.
Our EU seriously seems to try to regulate competition out of existence :/
So long as you don't have millions of users, you are exempt from "Section 3" requirements. If you got millions of users, I'm sure such companies can afford implementing the mentioned regulations.
Honestly, it currently doesn't look extremely bad for small/micro businesses but we will see.
Oh it's far worse than that. The next fundamentalist quasi-dictatorship in Romania, Poland or Hungary gets to decide what's illegal and immoral and therefore censored in Belgium and Sweden.
The phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.
Whilst they are focused upon the larger outlets and targeting that, the lesser, future platforms will be burdened with an entry cost far higher than before; Pushing that opertunity of inivation further from the reaches of those on the otherside of wealth.
Just ironic that the intentions of the EU upon this only fuel anticomepative divides via that entry cost barrier to compete.
> Cross-border removal orders issued by illiberal member states without a court order can take down media reports and information that is perfectly legal in the country of publication.
It is bad, but what's worse is that this is not even all that consequential. Remember the case with Leica advert featuring the famous Tiananmen shot taken with one of their cameras? After CCP's outrage, Leica took it down at its own initiative (and nearly apologized to boot).
Which means, people in liberal member states will no longer be indifferent towards the actions of the illiberal ones. Maybe if the illiberal states don't share the values of the liberal ones, they shouldn't be in the same union? The thoughts an prayers being with the democrats of Hungary is not enough, Hungarians might better choose if they want to be a part of the society that tolerates stuff or go live in a system where Putin-like governance is the way to go.
I'm kind of hoping for a similar thing happening globally. The actions of states like Saudi Arabia are well tolerated only because their actions don't have any real impact in EU or USA.
Reading the posts here I have to take a radically different point of view. Maybe even an unpopular one.
These topics, as with most politically discussed topics just aren't important. At least to most constituents. If I look around and talk to people they don't care about digital privacy. On the contrary. They don't want these cookie banners. They blame the GDPR for those. They are pissed because online and offline they need to click banners or fill out paper forms to get even basic services.
If I think about the GDPR related things I had to fill out at doctors, veterinarians and such when I (or my animals) needed help I can relate. You just want help not read page after page of legalese.
People were trained to correlate data privacy with stuff that annoys them.
So no. It doesn't matter. Not to the majority of people I believe. Especially not when it is at the EU level.
The consumer protection aspects of this law are simply cover for its real purpose: installing tighter controls on what people are allowed to say and read on the internet, in the convenient guise of clamping down on "disinformation" and "hate speech". The ruling elite are furiously scrambling to censor, stamp out and criminalize any mass communication that they perceive as a threat to their entrenched power.
No that's not true. The decisions in the European Parliament were made by people freely elected in 2019 elections. The person who wrote this piece is a member of a minor party in the European Parliament[0] that is not happy with the decision.
The expectation that the Pirate Party, which has quite small public support, will steamroll over the politicians with large public support is appalling. Governance by all knowing computer elites who don't have a significant public support is the actual fascism IMHO.
They simply need to convince the public first in orther to change things.
This is an absurd position to take with regards to new legislation that will in almost no way benefit corporations. Sure, it might be watered down and not as effective as it could have been – as alleged in the article. But it's still legislation that corporations would much rather not have and be able to do what they want.
>We live in a fascist system (corporations + governance), where the government undertakes and waves through the legislation the corporations want.
That's not what fascism means.
>Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy
It's sad that "fascist" became one of those words that are thrown around for anything (ie. politicians/parties/system of governance) that one doesn't like.
[+] [-] Vespasian|3 years ago|reply
Patrick Breyer is a member of the Pirate party which holds a minority position and isn't quite happy with the results. While their views are, of course, a valuable part of the discussion, they portray the DSA in a deliberately bad light.
[+] [-] deutschepost|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/22/google-facebook-apple-eu-l...
[+] [-] anfogoat|3 years ago|reply
Unsurprisingly, the article simply repeats EU marketing speak and the facts in it are in the vein of bathing in nuclear waste will kill cancer cells.
[+] [-] mrtksn|3 years ago|reply
Equating the "Not everything that we wanted was implemented" with "We lost everything, they won" sounds toxic to me. It's also arrogant t believe that you have the perfect solution for everything, you are pure and all knowing when the others are corrupt and stupid.
I like having pirate parties as a voice but the I would never vote for them, they are extremist and maksimalist IMHO.
[+] [-] tangental|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cool_dude85|3 years ago|reply
Where it doesn't work is to do things that are popular among the electorate but that the politically powerful are opposed to. No catchphrase will help you with that, unfortunately.
[+] [-] inglor_cz|3 years ago|reply
A huge disappointment. Their once-core positions are now good for lip service only. Even the Pirate Party Forum (an open discussion forum) is now basically concentrated on power politics and discussions about such important agendas have atrophied.
[+] [-] throwaway290|3 years ago|reply
Not the opportunity. More will come and I got an impression that PP will keep fighting. I would vote for PP if I could.
[+] [-] mistrial9|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|3 years ago|reply
Our EU seriously seems to try to regulate competition out of existence :/
[+] [-] DethNinja|3 years ago|reply
I'm going through the DSA now and it looks like they exempted most of the hard to implement requirements for micro/small businesses.
You can find the full regulation here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=16081171...
So long as you don't have millions of users, you are exempt from "Section 3" requirements. If you got millions of users, I'm sure such companies can afford implementing the mentioned regulations.
Honestly, it currently doesn't look extremely bad for small/micro businesses but we will see.
[+] [-] otherotherchris|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zenst|3 years ago|reply
Whilst they are focused upon the larger outlets and targeting that, the lesser, future platforms will be burdened with an entry cost far higher than before; Pushing that opertunity of inivation further from the reaches of those on the otherside of wealth.
Just ironic that the intentions of the EU upon this only fuel anticomepative divides via that entry cost barrier to compete.
[+] [-] throwaway290|3 years ago|reply
It is bad, but what's worse is that this is not even all that consequential. Remember the case with Leica advert featuring the famous Tiananmen shot taken with one of their cameras? After CCP's outrage, Leica took it down at its own initiative (and nearly apologized to boot).
[+] [-] mrtksn|3 years ago|reply
I'm kind of hoping for a similar thing happening globally. The actions of states like Saudi Arabia are well tolerated only because their actions don't have any real impact in EU or USA.
[+] [-] izacus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdoering|3 years ago|reply
These topics, as with most politically discussed topics just aren't important. At least to most constituents. If I look around and talk to people they don't care about digital privacy. On the contrary. They don't want these cookie banners. They blame the GDPR for those. They are pissed because online and offline they need to click banners or fill out paper forms to get even basic services.
If I think about the GDPR related things I had to fill out at doctors, veterinarians and such when I (or my animals) needed help I can relate. You just want help not read page after page of legalese.
People were trained to correlate data privacy with stuff that annoys them.
So no. It doesn't matter. Not to the majority of people I believe. Especially not when it is at the EU level.
[+] [-] beever|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] verisimi|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mrtksn|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197431/PATRICK_BREYER...
The expectation that the Pirate Party, which has quite small public support, will steamroll over the politicians with large public support is appalling. Governance by all knowing computer elites who don't have a significant public support is the actual fascism IMHO.
They simply need to convince the public first in orther to change things.
[+] [-] chki|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gruez|3 years ago|reply
That's not what fascism means.
>Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy
It's sad that "fascist" became one of those words that are thrown around for anything (ie. politicians/parties/system of governance) that one doesn't like.
[+] [-] KarlKemp|3 years ago|reply