cabbage

I have no idea as I don't follow apple much, but I am aware that they are constantly trying to find ways to avoid complying with EU law, and that it is often rapidly struck down.

What you're describing here is not a failure of the law, but Apple trying real hard to find creative ways not to comply with it. To me it only shows that they are desperate, and that EU law is in fact getting to them.

If they keep at it it'll eventually end up in court, the case will take a couple of years, and they'll be slammed with a fine and asked to get their shit together.

Does the law demand unsigned software?

The answer is no. It's not phrased like that. But it's all about ensuring free competition in digital markets. The sole purpose of Google's move here is to hinder competition in their own digital market, and to keep control over it.

So the law does not have a paragraph stating that "unsigned software must be allowed", but it has a bunch of other paragraphs that can be used to strike down on monopolistic behaviour.

Google are aware of the law, and will try to find a loophole by designing a system that they believe technically complies with it. Then someone will sue them, it will end up in the European court, and the European court will in all likelyhood tell Google to get fucked.

It seems american tech companies think they can get away with anything because that's how it works in the US. We are repeatedly seeing that this is not how it works in Europe: the Court of Justice tends to care deeply about the intention of the law, as well as the perceived consequences of their rulings. And they don't seem to care all that much about American capitalists.

But to answer your question very simply: No, it doesn't. But thankfully that doesn't matter at all.

What exactly do you mean?

Sure, nothing is perfect, but EU legislation has generally been quite good, from the GDPR to the DMA.

The challenges are more related to enforcement - rules on the book are worth nothing if we don't force companies to live by them. In this respect we've seen some pretty sloppy behaviour, but also some victories. It's not a one-sided story.

Another challenge is of course to keep passing good laws, and to avoid terrible ones. Chat control needs to be stopped. Stopping it is a matter of convincing national governments it's a bad idea, as well as members of the European Parliament - everyone should be writing their representatives NOW. But that's another issue entirely. :)

Google is clearly trying to find a loophole here. Their loophole clearly sucks.

In all likelihood it'll end up in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union. And in all likelihood Google will lose again.

The Court of Justice generally seems unimpressed by American lobbyists, so the strategy of finding a dumb loophole is probably doomed to fail.

The EU already forced sideloading to be officially supported on iPhones thanks to the Digital Markets Act, and that law applies to Google as well.

The US will likely apply pressure, just like they are trying to force their death machines to be legalized on European roads. Apple already tried to pressure the union and failed, but the political climate has changed a bit since then, and while EU bureaucrats can be fierce, European leadership tends to be weak as fuck.

But yeah, chances are that this change won't apply to the EU. :)

Yeah, I got what you meant - it's a word that takes on a billion different meanings. I just find it to be important to push back against the strawman whenever I see it, as I'm not gonna let a bunch of dumb kids raised by a social media algorithm ruin feminism for me. Get off my lawn etc.

In feminist scholarship it tends more towards the "we are all victims of patriarchy" stance. Most my friends are academics so they tend to lean the same direction, though not always.

It's worth emphasising that concerns about male mental health in large part comes from feminism. Feminism is not inherently man hating, and research of gender dynamics through the lense of feminism is what made it possible to observe how patriarchal structures in society harm not only women, but also men.

It's kinda like how a marxist will tell you that even rich people are happier in egalitarian societies: Capitalism hurts everyone, including the ones seemingly profiting from it. In the same way, feminism gave way to the insight that patriarchy hurts everyone, including men.

That said, you're not wrong that here is a (perhaps more popular rather than scholarly) feminist critique of male grievances. Feminism is a bunch of different things, and there's a bunch of contradictions between different understandings of feminism.

Not too weird then that people end up hating the whole issue. Some feminists hate it because it's sympathising with the oppressor or whatever, while anti-feminists hate it because they see it as soft feminist bullshit or whatever. Having a nuanced opinion about anything these days is difficult.

How about getting a portable monitor?

Pros:

• Cheaper
• Less e-waste, doesn't require a whole new computer
• Fewer components that can break
• Stays up to date along with your phone - won't be unable to update netflix in five years because of lacking software updates
• Probably a better screen than what you'd get from a cheap tablet

Cons:

• Your phone would need to support an external monitor
• Not a separate device; good for watching videos, less good for sofa surfing
• You'd need to connect your phone somehow while consuming content. I think there are some wireless options, but personally I'd probably just use a cable.

Sarah El Haïry, France's High Commissioner for Children, described the death as "horrifying".

"Platforms have an immense responsibility in regulating online content so that our children are not exposed to violent content. I call on parents to be extremely vigilant", she wrote on X.

The satire writes itself.

Not exactly inspiring a lot of confidence that these people will have the necessary skills to deal with this tragedy and prevent it from happening again. She should be the one looking into regulating online platforms, starting with the one she's posting from.

Yeah. "EU wants this, EU wants that" - bullshit, the EU has no will of its own. A set of politicians within the EU, on the other hand.

Training LLMs is not surveillance. As long as the platform doesn't need to know who I am I'm good.

(Though I wish it wasn't used by capitalists for anything, obviously)