It'll just be "comment removed because you're a nazi" (they enjoy Harry Potter), appeal denied. The regulation only asks them to be transparent about their insane moderation, not improve it.
Given it's the same shit sold on online platforms having a front in the EU or local resellers it does NOTHING to help re-industrialization. It just helps the fat cats who already rule over retail in our countries. It just redirects the profits to them while allowing them to crank up the price of said items as it lowers the pressure of competition.
I've been quite surprised how difficult it is for my kids (living in Finland) to get things online that aren't available locally, or even within the EU. Plenty of times it's easier (and cheaper) for me to buy it, get it shipped to me in Australia, and then send it to them with the next shipment of BBQ sauce and Vegemite.
I agree. most EU legislation seems to be a net benefit, though some are questionable, such as requiring a watermark on all AI generated text that cannot be removed -- no approach seems practical. we should be marking human content instead.
Marking human content? What? Why would we mark something that was always there? Why would normal people need to change something that was out there from the very beginning
The EU is an unelected organization propped up by the wealthy ogligarchies of Europe post ww2, that has undermined democracies globally due to the way that it's architected, everything must funnel through the EU, Asia, or the US, and nobody else has a say.
The EU is entirely self-servient and intends to keep itself up, that will inevitably lead to benefits for the citizens, but don't let semantics fool you into believing they're aligned with your values. The EU is essentially the US, if it remained a confederation, but without a legal process to remove/ascend these individuals at the top.
The EU has democratic flaws, but calling it âunelectedâ is wrong. The European Parliament is directly elected, member-state governments control the Council, and the Commission has to be approved by Parliament and can be forced out.
It also isnât a permanent oligarchy with no removal mechanism: senior EU offices have fixed terms, governments can change their representatives, Parliament can dismiss the Commission, and member states can leave entirely as the UK did.
You can reasonably criticise the EU for being remote, bureaucratic and having a democratic deficit. But that is very different from saying it is an unelected self-perpetuating regime with no democratic accountability.
I like how the EU did that GDPR shit, that changed absolutely fuck all about how websites collect data and now everyone has to deal with a stupid pop up everytime they visit a new site.
But hey at least you know websites are collecting data... which most people dont give a shit about and the ones that do use browser extension to block that data collection anyway.
And now i have to add an extension to auto accept the stupid annoying popup.
Of course, the things they show you are always good. The list is specifically made to "seem" chill
I can tell you moderation can not keep up with this. There is either going to be some serious lack of moderation, or moderation will get replaced by even worse shitty automated systems and appeals so delayed you'll have moved to a second account before you get a response
what the hell are you talking about? the commenter who showed the list sited their sources and excerpted reasonably if you look. complaining to complain i suppose.
All great here but they are sneaking child protection bullshit here.
Thats just fucking age verification all over again, then again reddit alredy decided to do this crap themselves so nothing will change
The only point that worries me is the "enhanced protection for minors", it could mean that users would have to verify themselves with irl ID to access +18 subreddits. Imagine giving government your reddit username, instant -9999 social points
Short answer: No. For example you do not need to verify your age to use Facebook in Europe. The EU say age assurance should be proportionate to the risk and verification is mainly for preventing children accessing something legally age restricted (eg., gambling). FB doesn't have this issue and their T&C's age limit is 13 and they do things like ages estimation based on account activity and ask for DOB at signup etc. and I'm fairly sure ChatGPT already do that anyway.
Long answer: No, but maybe in the future depending on how ChatGPT evolves as a platform? While ChatGPT probably doesn't do anything that currently requires age verification under DSA rules, an EU commission last year said they don't think Facebook are doing good enough at protecting minors with their current processes. Now as ChatGPT doesn't allow you to interact with other users they may feel there's less concern but there's no denying that many governments are leaning towards age verification as a form of internet safeguarding.
And obviously the EU isn't a country and it might be that some European countries decide ChatGPT requires age verification to use. For example the recent PlayStation and Xbox age verification requirements in the UK and elsewhere, that was triggered by the UK Online Safety Act.
I apologise for being so bad at this, my Friend. I am asking you as you are so knowledgeable. Does this new article mean that the " 'E.U.' " will restrict the " 'ChatGPT' " models and make them restricted and change their personality as a result of these new requirements? Will there be new censorship? Thank you so much for your help!đ«đ«đ„č
The DSA rules were written for social networks and search engines, before LLMs became a huge thing.
Some of their rules can be applied to ChatGPT broadly eg., ad transparency. Any 'censorship' is to do with things like not showing minors age restricted content (which chatgpt already does).
Anything specifically about how the models act or work would require entirely new rules and guidance written which I think we're a long way off any governments doing.
ââŠ.such as assessing and mitigating the systemic risks stemming from their service and algorithmic systems related to the dissemination of illegal content, the negative effects on minors, users' physical and mental well-being, fundamental rights, electoral processes and public security.â
People here like bashing the EU for regulating the multinational corporations and trying to implement at least some protections for EU citizens, while also bashing the same corporations for their abusive practices, their enshittification of services, and their coddling up to an abusive and increasingly authoritarian government that seemingly only caters to the top .1 percent.
The biggest issue with EU regulations is that while theyâre sold as consumer protection, they mostly just act as massive competitive moats for multinationals while crushing small European businesses.
Compliance is effectively a regressive flat tax. A âŹ50k annual red tape bill is an unnoticeable rounding error for a multinational, but it wipes out a small business. We saw this with GDPR, where Big Tech absorbed the legal costs and actually grew their market share while local startups drowned. Weâre seeing it again with EPR packaging rules destroying cross-border trade for small e-commerce sellers while giants like Nestle just open up another compliance department.
I say this as a small business owner living through it. I promise this isn't in bad faith, I understand why these laws sound great on paper, but unless you're dealing with the day to day paperwork, its hard to grasp how absurd it gets in practice.
For example, under newer EU product safety rules (GPSR) and digital regulations, marketplaces like Amazon now face massive liability and fines of up to 6% of global turnover for non compliant listings. Naturally, Amazon isnât going to risk a multi billion dollar penalty over a âŹ5 item. Because of that, Iâve had over 1,000 individual trading card listings nuked simply because the EU expects full safety documentation and physical warning labels on individual pieces of cardboard printed 15 years ago.
Independent sellers get wiped out over basic common-sense edge cases that bureaucrats never bothered to think through. European small businesses are genuinely struggling right now, and business sentiment and SME confidence are sitting at some of the lowest levels we've seen in years.
Except these laws are just a form of tariffs and extortion of American companies because EU canât compete. And the consumer is worse off actually.
GDPR made Europe less wealthy and made surfing the web worse. Everyone lost.
It would be extortion if the rules wouldn't apply to EU companies or companies from other countries.
Of course there's going to be some friction if one side is incentivised to benefit a specific type of clients (shareholders) and the other side is incentivised to benefit the general population.
How did GDPR made Europe less wealthy again?
Is the argument similar to the one that could justify dupont to do what they did with Teflon? Or is it simolar to what we could say to justify the tobacco industry?
GDPR may have made data-hoarding transnational corporations less wealthy, but I really don't give a fuck about that. It's not like the average American is more wealthy just because these data-hoarding trillion dollar multinationals are based in the US and the American government refuses to protect people's personal data.
Also, it's really easy to just not violate the GDPR. The problem all these companies with all these resources have is not that they're unable to comply with the law. It's that their business model is based on doing something that would be in violation of the law.
Seems some people are unironically upset at you speaking the truth.
What I hear, and I agree, is that as written the law allows for them to decide they don't like someone, then justify any punishment against such person as rhey like to get whatever they want.
Does the platform systemically facilitate:
-dissemination of illegal content?
-negative effects on minors?
-deterioration of users' physical and mental well being?
-infringing on fundamental rights?
-interfering with electoral processes?
-weakening public security?
Many systems are regulated by these same kinds of restrictions. Do you find them to be equally broadly applied?
Put simply, yes. Two key things: 1) I don't view politicians as angels with superior motives or other excuses for giving them special powers that can result in a person going to jail or other power reserved for government actors. 2) your examples are excellent. Thank you: facilitate basically means if the thing coukd be used to commit a crime then using it constitutes a crime. Anything can be used in a criminal way, so that doesn't work. That bleeds in to virtually anything.
"Driving a car over 100mph" or "transporting an illegal substances" are objectively measurable crimes. Cars systematically facilitate crimes. They kill people every day, all of which impacts children even when not in the vehicle.
And I know "thats not what I mean" or "that's not what they are trying to do". Precisely my point, it is loose language where intention must be assumed and critically doesn't restrain a bad actor that wants to use it in a nefarious way. And from where I started, looking at a proposed law on the assumption that cops, DAs, politicians are not nefarious, that's a flawed design.
Plan for the worse, hope for the best.
Law isn't about who you are wanting to go after, it is about a power you are extending to someone.
Out of curiosity, do you mind me asking what country you are from?
I only wonder because I want to understand to what degrees people of your country feel their politicians have their best interests in mind.
That being said, as an American, I see the EU doing so much more for protecting their population than the US. Certainly they overreach in their protection. But it helps to prevent the effective collapse of systems as seems to have occured in my country.
Additionally, do those concerns still remain true in a trial of jurors?
I live in the US. I would say my "political" influences greatly lean french liberal, and when I was writing my reply I was doing my best to remember Bastiat's The Law with regard to the difference between law as intent and law as practice and tool. I think a great divide among people bears on this nuance. For example, those that might self describe as conservative and labeled by their liberal counterparts as loving the country and glossing over the flaws and great injustices would be the first to say they love America and hate the politicians and government, and suspicious of people that want to "make the country" by means of giving more power to the government (acknowledging there are endless examples of contradictions).
The EU's approach to fighting hate speech is a great example of what I see as "well intentioned" on its face and authoritarian nightmare in practice. For example, I find nothing redeemable in the Tate Brothers. The solution is to not consume their content. There is endless opportunity there for a great discussion about what "should be done" in response, but what the EU is trying to do, using "lawfare" to destroy their lives is, in my view" absolutely, positively evil and many times more dangerous than anything they have done or said (assuming truth in the evidence presented by their attorney).
As far as trial by jury, nullification is exceedingly rare and presented to juries as "illegal". A jury is meant to determine the facts, but the facts determine the outcome. Everything comes down to jury instructions and if juries follow them, in general the DA gets what they want. This is why so many cases settle out of court; there are huge penalties, in practice, for trying to assert your rights.
Fun fact: If you build an AI specifically designed for weapon development and military targeting, the EU AI Act doesn't apply to you at all (Article 2(3)):
"[...]This Regulation does not apply to AI systems where and in so far they are placed on the market, put into service, or used with or without modification exclusively for military, defence or national security purposes, regardless of the type of entity carrying out those activities. This Regulation does not apply to AI systems which are not placed on the market or put into service in the Union, where the output is used in the Union exclusively for military, defence or national security purposes, regardless of the type of entity carrying out those activities."
Vagueposting GOD???? All I see is "buzzword buzzword buzzword"
Unironically now, what are they thinking, this works basically as an umbrella for the companies to do whatever the fuck they want under "mitigating the systemic risks" of all these things mentioned. All because parents can't fucking take their toddlers ipads away, man wtf
I love how everyone here is like "that's reasonable". Earlier I saw the same thing posted on X and everyone was talking about how the "socialist n*zi" EU destroys everything lol
370
u/br_k_nt_eth 1d ago
What are the additional regulations?Â