It's up to the American standards, for what that's worth.
Honestly, not much.
FiskFisk33
joined 2 years ago
in a democracy the latter has to be preceded by the former.
Preliminary findings from july
- First, X designs and operates its interface for the “verified accounts” with the “Blue checkmark” in a way that does not correspond to industry practice and deceives users. Since anyone can subscribe to obtain such a “verified” status, it negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with. There is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing the “verified account” to deceive users.
- Second, X does not comply with the required transparency on advertising, as it does not provide a searchable and reliable advertisement repository, but instead put in place design features and access barriers that make the repository unfit for its transparency purpose towards users. In particular, the design does not allow for the required supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online.
- Third, X fails to provide access to its public data to researchers in line with the conditions set out in the DSA. In particular, X prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping, as stated in its terms of service. In addition, X's process to grant eligible researchers access to its application programming interface (API) appears to dissuade researchers from carrying out their research projects or leave them with no other choice than to pay disproportionally high fees.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3761
peer networks are not illegal if the peers are consenting members.
Totally doable if this was a distributed service.
ok not randomly generated, but you know
are you implying firefox is in a state of neglect?
On the contrary. They can hide this kind of thing in the numbers. Reporting on egregious individual cases has a chance to heighten awareness.
On a positive note, that kind of claim has been struck down in Canada before.
Nah, a democratic nation has to follow its own laws. It looks much better if they revoke it with proof after due process.
A few friends of mine used to have a sms-based group chat we used for many years. One of those friends kept losing phones and getting new numbers. At some point one of his older numbers texted something to the tune of "what the fuck is this, why are you texting me?!". It turns out the old number had been reassigned.
then again, no state secrets were exchanged.
What's the point of a summary that's longer than the article itself?
yeah, only time will tell.