Because I agree with Rubio. These laws are stupid and they will be here in the US soon.

You do with your laws whatever the fuck you want. We have different approaches to things and if US based companies don't like that, they'll have to find somewhere else to sell their stuff instead of relying on your government to help them bully other countries. Capitalism, small government, and all that.

Is this what US diplomats are doing now? Fucking pathetic.

Oh no. Imagine seeing pro-Trump ad, but the "paid by" reads "Vladimir Putin". I mean, I get why Trump does not like transparency, but this law isn't all that bad, includes stuff like having basic fundamental rights in ToS and being able to contact the company.

Good for people, bad for authoritarians and corporations.

There is a polish movie called "Debt". It's about a guy who unknowingly does some business with a gangster and ends up owning him some money. Throughout the movie he gives the gangster more and more money but the fictional debt only keeps growing.

This is exactly what happened here. EU folded on the trade deal so now US wants more. It was clear to anyone with a little bit of sense that agreeing to 15% tariffs will not stabilize the situation. EU is run by idiots.

Marco Rubio, fuck you, you piece of shit!

What a disgusting pigfucking punk this piece of shit turned out to be. When he was a Senator he was "just" awful. Goddamn I hope The Fates have something cooking up for him.

"diplomats"

No man, those people got fired in like week 1.

Lazy question as I haven't followed the DSA closely and Wikipedia seems very surface level - does it do stupid privacy invasive crap and forget small sites exist like the UK's Online Safety Act?

Can you explain why they are stupid? Please remember to take the boot from your mouth before you begin.

Apparently, laws and you have something in common

What tech ?
We have ASML and it s great but other than that in what tech are we leader ?
We had nuclear turbine before but macron sold them and I can t find any other one

I haven’t reviewed the whole thing, only small parts but it does look to handle online verification better (re: invasiveness).

There is a section talking about a prototype app already released that is used to store age. It verifies off a couple different government docs (ID, bank details, upcoming Digital ID), but in the end only stores the user’s age (no name, ID, birth date, or other details). The fact page for the app claims that once age is established there is no further contact between the user and age verifier, but of course this is where I likely see the issue with any age verification tool. It’ll depend on whether the verification tool trashes age-related data once done with it, or if they retain a copy for whatever reasons.

Proof of age is tied to the age required per country per activity, but this sounds far more reasonable than having a single company verify and manage age data (Persona in the US).

I’m ignoring the US politics for a moment…

If I flag a comment on Lemmy for abuse, breaking community rules, or other reasons, do you y’all think I am individually owed a response from the mod team on whether the content stays approved, or was removed, that includes the specific criteria behind the decision?

That’s what the DSA requires among many other requirements.

Yeah, thry are neoliberals interested in maintaining the neoliberal world order that has existed for the past 50 years.

... which Washington says stifles free speech

No that's not it. Washington couldn't care kess

and imposes costs on U.S. tech companies,

Ding ding ding!

The Wikipedia page doesn't sound too bad, but IANAL.
The regulation linked from the wiki article only includes the word "age" three times and actually states:

[...] this prohibition should not lead the provider of the online platform to maintain, acquire or process more personal data than it already has in order to assess if the recipient of the service is a minor. Thus, this obligation should not incentivize providers of online platforms to collect the age of the recipient of the service prior to their use.

Haven't looked at it any more than that, but it sounds like it's already been in effect for ~2 years?

Regardless they should know that if you pay the Danegeld you'll never be rid of the Dane.

They still haven't shaken him!

They can't, it's fused with their tongue