51–59 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
6% of sales is just “cost of doing business”. Sometimes it’s more profitable to eat the fine than change your behaviour.
A fine doesn't give immunity for the future. You pay the fine for the past behaviour, then you start paying fines of up to 5% of daily global revenue for every day you keep being non-compliant. That's the start. The end is not doing business.
> Companies that breach the DSA risk fines of as much as 6% of their annual global sales. It's nuts that this is all they can manage. Like, take 30% or 40% -- that might actually encourage compliance. I think they'll comply, but almost entirely not because of small fines.
The point of fines is to correct bad behavior, not to bankrupt businesses which create jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter if you're losing money on paper, since the fee is on sales, not profit.
No it’s based on “net income”: revenue - expenses > But there are a handful of designated platforms that aren’t paying anything in the first round as they reported a loss during the preceding financial year — including Amazon, Pinterest, Snapchat and Wikimedia.
"6 % of the annual worldwide turnover"
Roblox should be outright banned in the EU or at least the top 100 games all qualify for what would be considered lootboxes/gambling and generally predatory behavior. Basically every single action you can do has a "robux" alternative which is faster/better + boosts cost robux. Then there's the worst of them all: trading card games. Another problem is that nothing carries over between games so as the algorithm shifts…
You don't understand the meaning of "slop" or "brainrot" until you "play" a Roblox "game". And that's before we even talk about the problematic stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
6% of sales is just “cost of doing business”. Sometimes it’s more profitable to eat the fine than change your behaviour.
A fine doesn't give immunity for the future. You pay the fine for the past behaviour, then you start paying fines of up to 5% of daily global revenue for every day you keep being non-compliant. That's the start. The end is not doing business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am for more maths in laws like these: frist_fine = 0.06 × anual_global_sales fine(n) = first_fine * n^x And the exponent x is to be chosen by how harsh you want to be. Repeat offenders will quickly run out of money as long as your exponent is reasonably bigger than 1. If we take an exponent of 2 a repeat offense by OpenAI would look like this: 1st offence: EUR 1.50 billion (6%) 2nd offence: EUR 6.00 billion (24%) 3…
If you tell them their expenses beforehand, they'll budget them in, though.
It is hard to "budget in" a expense that is multiple time your earnings. Especially if that expense is growing exponentially each time..
But shows that people still don't understand exponential functions, even on this platform. We are truly doomed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it’s based on “net income”: revenue - expenses > But there are a handful of designated platforms that aren’t paying anything in the first round as they reported a loss during the preceding financial year — including Amazon, Pinterest, Snapchat and Wikimedia.
Where is that quote from? The OP literally says it's based on "annual global sales", and so does this: "6 % of the annual worldwide turnover" https://streamlex.eu/articles/dsa-en-art-52/
> "must also file transparency reports, detail risk mitigation plans and pay an annual fee to the European Commission."
> This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is that quote from? The OP literally says it's based on "annual global sales", and so does this: "6 % of the annual worldwide turnover" https://streamlex.eu/articles/dsa-en-art-52/
Thats for fines - the comment I was replying to was referring to the annual fee not fines: > "must also file transparency reports, detail risk mitigation plans and pay an annual fee to the European Commission." > This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
6% is the cost of sales tax in some places. That is not considered any kind of correction to bad behavior - it's literally the cost of buying goods in a variety of places. I'd strongly argue that 6% will not correct bad behavior. What corrects bad behavior? The threat of serious consequences to a business.
For Roblox their 6% of global turnover ($5b) is $300m which while it seems trivial, is 30% of their profit ($1b). For a company like Google this fine would be in the vicinity of $24 billion, which would be a bit over 20% of their annual profit. So for companies that have to answer to shareholders this is already a pretty big deterrent, but just in case if they reject compliance it becomes a periodic penalty!
If your company is significantly breaking the law, should the company have profit for that year?
Paying the bills is one thing, but profit to shareholders?