>DMA: European Pirates celebrate success with interoperability requirements in final trilogue results >The Pirates in the European Parliament welcome the final trilogue outcome of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) that was negotiated yesterday. Representatives of the EU Parliament, the Council and the Commission have agreed on including interoperability requirements for messaging services. According to Pirates, this will allow more choice for users, who will no longer be forced to use multiple platforms for private messenger communication. >This will be of enormous benefit to users who will have a better choice to move to more privacy friendly services.
>doesn't comply >postpones fine payment by 6+ years using simple legal tactics >never pay
Cooper Powell
Fucking based
Jayden Evans
This is well intentioned but the EU is doing more harm than good with it, as usual. This kind of shit only works if the enforcement has teeth, and it's 100% not going to. We're going to end up with the large existing players completely ignoring this by throwing a small amount of money and lawyers around. Meanwhile smaller messaging services trying to start up and provide competition are going to be forced to give up any competitive advantages or network effects, and will die without being able to break into the market. This legislation won't affect megacorps at all and will just stifle competition.
Jaxson Collins
I also considered the fact that big tech might be powerful enough to resist this law, however, considering how Meta had a hard time recently in the EU, maybe it's not completely hopeless. Besides, it it does succeed, smaller messaging services will likely have more users than before, just consider how many currently would want to leave Discord but can't because "they have friends there"
Ian King
Sadly this. GDPR would unironically be all we need if it was enforced properly just like cookie banners but no let's fuck over a few small companies and do nothing but suck FAGMANs dick.
Xavier Cruz
>hey guys I heard you are looking to backdoor messaging services >boo >hey guys I heard you are looking to unify messaging services >yay How fucking dumb can you be?
Owen Cox
The party who pushed for this new privacy law (the Pirate Party) also *opposed* the chat control proposal. You can literally see it here: patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/ Besides, I doubt the chat control regulation will even pass. It completely contradicts the GDPR.
Xavier Nelson
Reading comprehension Hans
Asher Wood
It would also make e2e encryption useless (and illegal) if the service also has a carbon copy of text content of all users. Always for the same reasons and extend further with false reasons for state of emergency. If they add the exception of state services from GDPR, it breeds a ground for a literal STASI in Europe.
Joseph Johnson
I assumed he was implying how this new law made everyone forget about the chat control one. Maybe he was referring to how "unifying all messaging services" can compromise them all? This law isn't about some big centralization of messaging services, hell it wouldn't even be possible. I think it's more about giving the option to users of a privacy-friendly service to communicate with those of a non-privacy-friendly service, while still using the privacy-friendly service (kinda like the Matrix-Discord I assume) (Matrix has privacy problems too though)
Sebastian Williams
Indeed. It's a move absolutely comparable to the secret police of totalitarian regimes. Pull out something like this and the political unrest will increase even more than it did with covid.
Angel Nelson
>the pirate party is a communist larp If that's communism why shouldn't we demand more of it?
Caleb Bell
How is this supposed to work in practice? Do messaging services now have to provide XMPP bridges or some other protocol? And what about private or semi-private servers? Does every public IRC server now have to offer some kind of bridge or is this just for business or what? >This kind of shit only works if the enforcement has teeth, and it's 100% not going to. It will, just not to full effect immediately. Same with GPDR, which is fining increasingly large amounts. >We're going to end up with the large existing players completely ignoring this by throwing a small amount of money and lawyers around. Lawyers don't override law. >Meanwhile smaller messaging services trying to start up and provide competition are going to be forced to give up any competitive advantages or network effects, and will die without being able to break into the market. What network effects? That's literally the opposite of what's happening. Now you can actually develop a messenger or chat app and have a usable product that you can reach someone with.
Josiah Rodriguez
>and do nothing but suck FAGMANs dick. Oh like you're doing now by throwing around the muh small companies FUD? GDPR compliance is not a problem for companies of any size unless they actually want to fuck over their users.
Bentley King
You should inform yourself before having an opinion. As far as I know l, the fines can go up to 10-20% of yearly income. So yeah, if the final version of the law stays like that, it should be more than enough to scare corporations into compliance.
Eli Jackson
based
Brayden Butler
You should be older than 2 years old before you're allowed to interpret the consequences of written law
Ryder Ross
it only applies to companies with a large number of employees iirc
