Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

#91

Post by netlipapa »

rcbdev wrote: post #87
Frannky wrote: post #62

I left the EU years ago. Today, I feel way happier and freer. Once you're out, you realize how strongly they were influencing your ability to be free via rules, taxes, news, low salaries, and business start-up costs. Try it yourself if you get the chance.

I earn much more in my 'highly-taxed' Central European city than I'd earn in i. e. Switzerland after all costs are accounted for. Starting my company here cost almost nothing, and hourly rates start at €80. Cost of living is absurdly low compared with earnings - this all in a capital with one of the highest qualities of life on this planet. Schooling and university is completely free and of high quality. How do peopl…

Just take a look at their comment history, most comments are completely empty in content like this one, and I'm willing to bet that if this indeed a person, they've never lived in an European country. Nobody that actually lived in the EU says they've "left the EU", since each country is pretty different and it makes no sense to say it like that. This whole thread has bot-vibes.

Re: EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

#92

Post by sofixa »

alephnerd wrote: post #78
sofixa wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1], but being a single overarching conglomerate makes it significantly easier to manage the GCAP project, versus FCAS which became a Renault-Airbus spat which turned into a France-Germany spat. I have a hard time with you, you sound extremely confident in your opinions, provide sources and everything, and then make massive…

> To top it off, you cite sources that don't support your claims. I may have made 1 mistake in that citation, but you have clearly not read the other. And you clearly aren't citing anything > I have a hard time with you The feeling is mutual. Answer my questions of how or it's just whataboutism.

How what? How the EU will support Ukraine? The same way it currently has, and if things get dire, there will be more pressure to get alternative revenue streams (like convincing Belgium).

Or how there have been no ultimatums, and how EU legislations aren't negotiating tactics?

Re: EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

#93

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

nradov wrote: post #86
henry2023 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it’s stupid in your perspective. nevertheless; nations have the right to put laws in place and enterprises willing to provide goods and services ought to follow those rules.

And this is why the EU is stagnant and unable to innovate. These nations can do whatever they want but let's be honest about what's going on here. The law is stupid because it's forcing US tech companies to subsidize research boondoggles. They're providing bullshit jobs to useless academics who are incapable of doing any real work, and the final output will be some long reports that no one ever reads.

> And this is why the EU is stagnant and unable to innovate.

Can you help me understand how the EU is stagnant? Granted, they have lower economic growth than the US, but they're (mostly) not running large fiscal deficits.

And unable to innovate is quite simply, untrue. Deepmind (you know the people that invented LLMs) were a UK based company and were purchased by Google. Spotify & Skype were also both relatively innovative.

If by innovative, you mean are highly valued in the stock market above what a rational person would pay, then yeah Europe doesn't have as much "innovation". Now, if there was a single EU capital market (which honestly should be in London, despite the political complexities) then that might not be true.

Also worth noting that a lot of the US market is propped up by EU/EEA investors. Like, the Norwegian oil fund owns an appreciable amount of the US stock market. What would happen if all the European money was withdrawn from the US market? Nothing good for US "innovation".

And on the core point here, social media is now the public sphere, and as such is definitely worthy of investigation by academics. Like, if FB can do this (with much more personal data) then Twitter/X can do it. In fact, it would be super easy as they used to do it before Elon decided to attempt to monetise it badly.

Like, most studies of social media were performed on Twitter data, precisely because of this.

Re: EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

#94

Post by aydyn »

defrost wrote: post #89
aydyn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is historical revisionism. The US saw the MAUD report before entering the war. American scientists received copies as early as October (chemist James Conant received it october 3). But the US didnt commit to entering the war until after Pearl Harbor, December 8. You are mixing the order of events. Second you are overstating its importance. The primary contribution of the report is scientific feasibility. Every p…

MAUD made repeated paper approaches to the US to convince them of the feasibility of a weapons program, these were ignored. Mark Oliphant made several advances and presentations in person before the US were convinced. It's on record that regardless of any papers read, whether from the UK group, the Germans, the Japanese, et al. US scientists largely remained skeptical that a bomb was possible until repeated outside i…

You aren't correctly following the discussion.

The relevant order of events is when the US entered the war and when they received the report.

When Germany surrendered is not relevant to the hypothetical discussion.

The Manhattan project was an enourmous effort of 100,000. It was entirely self sufficient without the UK, and the results from the MAUD report were all replicated anyway. The most important advancements in chain reaction physics, plutonium reactor design, uranium enrichment architecture were all done without the british.

Its true that Britain made important early theoretical contributions and also supplied valuable British scientists, but the Manhattan Project’s success was overwhelmingly American in funding, manpower, industrial capacity, and scientific leadership. The U.S. would certainly have achieved the bomb on the same timeline without UK assistance.

Re: EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

#95

Post by defrost »

aydyn wrote: post #94
defrost wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MAUD made repeated paper approaches to the US to convince them of the feasibility of a weapons program, these were ignored. Mark Oliphant made several advances and presentations in person before the US were convinced. It's on record that regardless of any papers read, whether from the UK group, the Germans, the Japanese, et al. US scientists largely remained skeptical that a bomb was possible until repeated outside i…

You aren't correctly following the discussion. The relevant order of events is when the US entered the war and when they received the report. When Germany surrendered is not relevant to the hypothetical discussion. The Manhattan project was an enourmous effort of 100,000. It was entirely self sufficient without the UK, and the results from the MAUD report were all replicated anyway. The most important advancements in…

You seem woefully misinformed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement

  The Quebec Agreement was a secret agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States outlining the terms for the coordinated development of the science and engineering related to nuclear energy and specifically nuclear weapons.

  It was signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt on 19 August 1943, during World War II, at the First Quebec Conference in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. 

  British scientists performed important work as part of the British contribution to the Manhattan Project, and in July 1945 British permission required by the agreement was given for the use of nuclear weapons against Japan.
> The U.S. would certainly have achieved the bomb on the same timeline without UK assistance.

In real history the US didn't even consider a nuclear weapons program w/out being pushed by the Bitish.

In real history both Churchill and Stalin wer better informed as to the progress of the Manhattan Project than was Truman who wasn't even aware of the project until On April 25, 1945.

In the realm of speculative history, the atomic bombing of Germany has often been discussed by real informed historians, the bulk of these discussions, the better informed ones at least, conclude such a thing to be unlikely to impossible .. but still worthy of a good beer table hypothetical.

See, for one example: Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany? - https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/10/04/atomic-bomb-used-...

I'm still chuckling that you actually thought the US developed the bomb in total secrecy with no help from any other country.

Re: EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

#96

Post by aydyn »

defrost wrote: post #95
aydyn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't correctly following the discussion. The relevant order of events is when the US entered the war and when they received the report. When Germany surrendered is not relevant to the hypothetical discussion. The Manhattan project was an enourmous effort of 100,000. It was entirely self sufficient without the UK, and the results from the MAUD report were all replicated anyway. The most important advancements in…

You seem woefully misinformed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement The Quebec Agreement was a secret agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States outlining the terms for the coordinated development of the science and engineering related to nuclear energy and specifically nuclear weapons. It was signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt on 19 August 1943, during World War II, at th…

The UK being kept in secrecy from the Manhattan project is absolutely correct.

Yes, they were part of the beginning (MAUD report) but later cut off from full Manhattan Project information after 1942 due to U.S. security concerns and then formally cutoff by the McMahon Act of 1946, which made sharing of nuclear technology fully illegal. This is why for example Britain went on to develop its own bomb independently after the war, because they were not privy to the full development. And why any sort of collaboration only resumed more than a decade later in 1958, after the UK independently became a nuclear power.

If they were part of it, why would they need to design their own? Think about it logically.

I am really not saying anything that isnt widely known or understood. The american nuclear program in general was highly controlled information that was not shared to allies. The Manhattan project was kept in secrecy from the UK, contrary to your claim.

Are you from the UK?

There is this bizarre yet pervasize belief that Britain is still relevant on the global stage. I wonder if the overstating of Britain's very minimal role in the Manhattan project stems from the same vein.

In reality the UK is roughly the economic size of one US state and its modern role is that of a sports venue and tourist destination for more powerful countries. If you are from the UK, this discussion makes sense.

Re: EU hits X with €120M fine for breaching the Digital Services Act

#97

Post by qcnguy »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #60
qcnguy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auditors != researchers. Auditors are hired by the company being audited, have a very narrow and fixed mission justified by previous financial blowups that caused a lot of concrete damage to specific people, and there are strict standards defining what they are looking for and how. Audits don't tend to suck up personal data of customers. "Researchers" here means self-selecting academics going on arbitrary fishing exp…

It's not clear what "full access to everyone's data" actually means, isn't it limited to things that are already publicly available? So for example, I don't think researchers would get access to someone's Likes because that feature is now considered private, but they could access things like Posts and Retweets. My expectation is that researchers would be allowed to run queries against publicly available data as part…

It means what it says. A lot of these academics want to access people's IP addresses because they're trying to map out social networks and bot accounts, by which they mean any account they don't like the views of. So it means stripping people's anonymity under the guise of "research" and of course those academics can be trusted to immediately report everyone posting conservative views to the police, who will then arrest them and prosecute them.

> Facebook / Meta is compliant with these laws

They have a blue check system that works in the same way as X's does, so they aren't compliant. https://www.facebook.com/business/m/meta-verified-creators

But please understand that the EU is not a part of the world that has the rule of law. It has rule by law. Law in the EU is a vague thing, discovered as often as written, in which people who advance the EU's social plan are legal and people who oppose it are illegal. It's a system in which the EU Commission is judge, jury and executioner, and the courts are merely rubber stamps to which you can appeal if you feel like wasting money arguing in front of judges chosen for loyalty to the project over loyalty to high minded judicial principle.

Post reply on HN