I 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.

From our perspective, it’s good to see the EU protect its citizens from US tech practices.

I 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.

> 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.

X could just refuse to pay European advertisers and not allow EU user to pay for its premium version. Here, problem fixed.

The 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.

> A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from

So if I run a business from a country where cocaine is legal, I should be able to sell to users in the US? Are you sure you thought this through? Seems you're letting your emotions get in the way of your reasoning.

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't believe RIPE is a US organisation or branch of the US government.

Any attempts by the US government to assert control of a foreign non-profit entity such as RIPE is only going to end in tears. I suspect would also empower those pushing to balkanise the internet should the independence of RIPE or ARIN be violated.

I'm not sure region specific intranets is a future anyone should want.

Would you accept or the opposite situation then? A foreign company operating in and violating US law?

> A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from.

Why is that? I think you can reasonably argue that a user should enjoy the protections offered by law in the place they live.

it can apply US law in the US, yes. in the EU, it needs to follow EU law.

This is pretty much the position of China when it comes to IP law. It's compelling in some senses, but notably the U.S. does not agree.

Protected speech is what's covered by "free speech", not all speech. If you disagree with what specific areas of speech they find illegal, say so, be clear about it, rather than presupposing your views in your claims in an emotion evoking fashion (e.g. "speech they don't like").

It's extremely tiring to decipher takes like these and they're everywhere recently. It's supposed to be convincing, yet to read it without finding it jarring, I'd already need to agree with you. Makes no sense!

This complaint can be valid if a) you're not guilty of the "official reason", or b) competitors are guilty of the same things and are not getting penalized.

Can you show that either is true? Regarding b), there have been many, many articles posted here which show competitors being fined for various rule violations, so concrete examples would be great.

The USA has new visa rules. People who want a visa need to mark their social media accounts as "public": https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...

I wouldn't have a problem with that, except for the hypocrisy here.

The EU is requiring transparency for *advertisers*.

There already exists extensive examples of in-platform content geo-fencing. YouTube is infamous for this. What prevents Twitter from employing a similar strategy?

I further disagree that the legal system should be turned into a swiss cheese of enforced and unenforced laws, although I will admit, that is entirely a principled preference on my part. I strongly believe that bad laws should (ideally) be repelled, not worked around.

You mean how it happened with Charlie Kirk and all the posts about him, that led to people being tarred and feathered and losing their jobs?

A "cooperative" president who could be manipulated by everyone, which is why he promoted Tesla cars in front of the White House but also reduced support for them, reduced fleet MPG requirements, thinks clinate change and renewables are scams, etc.

And then Musk had his falling out when he left DOGE.

Public evil?

Yeah I reckon that's the only way to be sure

If you sincerely think X/Twitter is turning anything remotely close to a profit then you are in a tiny minority.

420 is a drug reference which Musk himself makes every so often.

> Censorship is exactly what this is.

What of this is censorship?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

Not a single word about removing anything in this.

I read the article it's about blue check marks, I'm replying to a comment that says that the fine should be higher and should apply to more people? Is he really suggesting blue check marks as the action requiring more than 120 million dollar fine and be applied to more big corps ? Which big corps and what specifically are their "blue check marks" action that warrants bazillion dollar fines?????