Apple and Meta fined millions for breaching EU law

The problem with Chrome and the DMA has to do with the fact that Alphabet does these "don'ts":

- treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform

- prevent users from un-installing any pre-installed software or app if they wish so (Chrome on Android can be disabled but not uninstalled)

- track end users outside of the gatekeepers' core platform service for the purpose of targeted advertising, without effective consent having been granted.

https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en#what-d...

> Technically, the first amendment applies only to state actors, not private entities.

That's probably not what the person you're responding to is talking about.

Americans have this unfortunate tendency to harp on and on about 'free speech' in contexts where the first amendment obviously does not apply, or, even more intriguingly/ironically, where the first amendment pretty clearly states the exact opposite.

For example, if some non-government-owned platform (such as a social network) bans a user, and that user says "My free speech rights are being infringed".

Whereas what the 1A actually states is the exact opposite: That platform has the right to ban that user, and the government is constitutionally restrained: If the government were to make a law that forces this social network to unban this user, that'd be the 1A violation.

Then there are only 3 options:

1. That user wildly misunderstands free speech. And given how common this is, 'most americans' is perhaps [citation needed] but the sentiment is understandable. It's not just that "My free speech!" is so common, it's also that articles about some incident pretty much never talk about this. Lawyers, legal wonks, legal podcasts that sort of thing - they talk about it, but, niche audience.

2. The meaning of 'free speech' in the sentence 'this social network has banned me; my free speech is being infringed' is not referring to 1A but to the concept as a general principle; a principle that is orthogonal, or even mutually exclusive with, the definition of 'free speech' the way 1A intends it.

3. They know exactly what 1A means but they are lying through their teeth in order to get some internet group ragin' going on.

If we make a habit of assuming good intentions, the nicest choice is option 2.

The somewhat famous "Section 230" covers part of this, and explains some of the pragmatic reasoning behind MCAC v Halleck: If you hold private companies responsible for having infringed free speech rights, then private companies are going to bend over backwards making clear they are not going to moderate. Anything. For any reason. Legal reasons, you see.

Totally, the Spaniards are on the edge against EU for forcing Apple to allow competing services on %25 of the smartphones they use. Madrid is pouring police force into Barcelona as we speak as the Catalans started burning cars on the streets against the unelected bureaucrats threatening them to give App Store alternatives to every 4th smartphone. Unjustified violence by the police is being reported against people who don't want to know about cheaper payment options. The situation is considered stable at this point but I don't think that EU will survive if Apple pulls out of EU. The president of the EU commission was caught mumbling at the mic "Ich hoffe, Apple ruft nicht an oder blufft, sonst ist alles verloren." which roughly translates to "I hope Apple doesn't call or bluff or all is lost" in Bavarian.

I don't understand what you're on about. The only laws that the USA has on the books that says anything about this are either [A] recently written state laws written as vehicles to virtue signal, particularly by DeSantis in Florida, or [B] the exact opposite.

For example, the first amendment indicates that apple doesn't just have the right to tell its users of its app store to say nothing about alternate payment methods. It goes further than that: The government must not tell Apple anything else. That's stretching 1A a bit; more likely 1A says nothing at all about what Apple is doing here.

"Free Speech" is a thing americans are fond of saying, but unfortunately, considering that 1A is often called 'the free speech amendment', what that actually means is usually unclear, and in this day and age, that means it gets weaponized: Folks start harping on about free speech and pick whatever of the many conflicting definitions so happens to suit their needs at that exact moment.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall was british, not american. She's the author of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

The thing about 1A and free speech in general: Forcing somebody to say something is just as bad as forcing somebody not to say something. And, once you start talking about non-governmental entities and 'free speech', those two things are at odds. After all, if the government tells some social network that they MUST NOT ban some user or delete some posting, that is compelled speech, and that's what I meant with '1A means the opposite of what you / this case / most americans think it means'. 1A protects the right of private companies to restrict your speech. It does not protect your right to have your speech protected from being suppressed, deleted, or otherwise restrained by private actors.

That might be a very risky bet. Currently a lot of people are looking for alternatives of US products, if Apple gets out of the EU, it might not be that easy to get back as the market might have drastically shifted.