They have jurisdiction over Palestine, that’s why they issued the arrests at all.
The point is diplomatic, politicians and other influential people in countries all over the world will find it easier to argue against Israeli interests. This is actually a major blow to Israeli diplomacy.
I don’t doubt something shitty is going to happen, but that would still be better, since Google would have to pay for fucking up the internet instead of doing it for free like now. And on the other hand, wouldn’t Google have to pay more than its competition combined for exclusivity?
Imagine Google pays Chrome 1 million schmeckles for exclusivity, if Microsoft and Amazon would show up saying they would also pay 1-1 million just for access, then Google would realistically need to pay at least 2 million for it to still make sense for Chrome. Something that used to be free for Google now is something that they need to outbid their whole competition for.
I’d imagine if Chrome was split, all the integrations would either have to be opened to other companies, imagine “log in to Chrome with your Microsoft account”, or would have to go away.
At least Google wouldn’t be able to treat web standards as their own playground any more, so other browsers could compete better.
I mean, they did vote for change… just not the change we were hoping for, I guess. Things will most likely change for the worse now.
That said, real good change wasn’t really on the ballot either.
Could you expand on that? Why couldn’t Chrome exist like Firefox does?
Apparently this is one of the things the Biden admin was doing consistently over all its four years.
This last flurry is only so that he confirms more than Trump did.
Not excusing it, but very few countries didn’t have slavery in their history at one point or another.
It’s just some never stopped, like the US.
A third wouldn’t care, a third would jack off to it and you know sanity is in a minority.
Oh fuck did the US come full circle and go full Stakhanovite? Back under communism in Eastern Europe, you’d do 105% of the target so you’d hit the bonus but not the target readjustment.
Your version looks worse.
Or maybe, just maybe, fine companies that commit criminal acts.
There really is a fine line between turning into an authoritarian regime and doing basic police work, right?
Twitter is not the sole, or even the biggest social media company in Europe. It’s not even in the top 3.
The advertisement sector will be fine.
The DMA has no bearing on disinfo, it’s about access, like mandating a public API to federate with or banning self-preferencing with other products.
The disinfo thing is regulated by the DSA - Digital Services Act, and it very much applies to Twitter.
Everyone knows that the “sex appeal” slider in character creation is for dick size in men and boob size in women.
or, if I’m mistaken, replace NATO with any other military alliance Ukraine would want to join
This is essentially what the Ukraine EU accession talks are about. The EU is the military alliance they want to join, and it is actually even more protective than the NATO.
So the question isn’t stupid, Ukraine actually wants this, the EU is of two minds about it so far.
even then calling it an organization is not really that accurate
It is an organization, you can go work for the NATO directly. They are headquartered in Brussels.
That said, military intervention on behalf of NATO works as you described, but there would be an obligation to help Canada in your example if the war would spread to its home soil. That said, the help obligation is literally worded “as they deem necessary”, so they could pretend that no large-scale intervention is necessary.
It’s very dry and boring legalese, but look up the EU-US Data Privacy Framework.
TL;DR: Biden signed a law last year letting EU courts enforce GDPR fines in US courts. It never happens because companies are not stupid and defend themselves in the EU courts.
It’s a recent edition of a string of increasingly privacy-favouring legislation attempts by the US to placate the EU about the rights of its citizens being respected abroad. The gist of it is that it is a US federal law signed into force by Biden last year, which makes it so that EU citizens have legal standing in US courts to enforce EU GDPR court decisions. There is not a lot of precedent yet, but that’s part of the point.
It precludes companies from using the loophole of not having any EU presence to evade fines and rules. Companies can and almost always exempt themselves from this by having an EU entity and subjecting themselves to GDPR directly, since if they get you through this, the EU court will already have tried and found against you, and the US federal court has little room to get you off the hook, because if they do, they risk Big Tech bottom lines by endangering EU-US data transfers.
You are right. I should not comment on stuff after driving for a day straight. Thanks for correcting the record.
You should also know that hosting a service in the US without explicitly denying service to Europeans, and not abiding by the GDPR makes you liable to criminal prosecution in the US. US federal law has a version of GDPR that does not protect US citizens, just EU ones.
The right to be forgotten is a separate thing from GDPR. GDPR lets the EU go after criminals illegally using private data, like Facebook.
Edit: This is wrong. The right to be forgotten appears in Recitals 65 and 66 and in Article 17 of the GDPR.
Well, this happened for example.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188568761/russia-putin-south-africa-brics-summit
This is a diplomatic blow to Israel, and if it ever becomes as isolated as Russia is from Western commerce, it will cease to exist.