The EU does not have the military capacity to protect Taiwan.

That’s not mentioning that the EU is not a military alliance. That’s the first political challenge to tackle.

Anyhow, the channel ‘Asianometry’, has a video covering the physics of EUV machines. They are an incredible linchpin of our modern world.

So true. This stuff is absolutely mind-blowing. Especially if you are old enough to remember how some of that seemed like almost unsurmountable problems. Now the solution are used in mass production.

It’s a myth that the GDPR is a useful tool in such cases. You know the expression “protected by copyright”? That’s how lawyers protect data.

The GDPR grants people rights over data concerning them, similar to how copyright grants rights over data. That means 2 things.

1. It’s rarely obvious that some data processing is illegal. It’s not obvious if it happens without consent. But even so, you often don’t need explicit consent to use someone’s data. EG when we write about French president Macron, then that is Macron’s data under the GDPR. Of course, you don’t need his consent to discuss or report on politics, and so you usually don’t need his consent to discuss his person.

2. Enforcement is difficult and expensive. Think about the problems the copyright industry has. Surveillance tools like Content ID can at least rely on knowing what exactly they are looking for. Besides, much of the world has similar laws supported by influential industries. Little chance to do that for GDPR.

Basically, using GDPR to protect actual secrets is like using copyright for the purpose.

ONCE AND FOR ALL!

/futurama

The Devs pulled out of France because of government pressure, but it wasn’t banned.

https://proton.me/blog/grapheneos-france

Good thing the EU has the GDPR, which solved this problem once and for all.

You can’t get more witchy and gothic than Inkubus Sukkubus. Maybe Heart of Lilith? It’s not their most catchy song. Pagan Born is nice. Alternatives: Midnight Queen, Vampyre Erotica, or Aradia.

For something OG (Original Goth) maybe Spellbound by Siouxsie And The Banshees.

Well. Step 1 is monitoring legal requirements around the world. In all the 50 US states, 200 countries, and whatever other kind of jurisdiction feels important.

You have to age gate social media for 16+ in Australia. Some content is criminal in some countries. Some content is 18+ in some countries but not in others. Some countries require such content to be age gated, others do not.

What kind of age verification is acceptable also varies…

You need to constantly have your eye on new laws, legal precedents, or decision by regulators and adapt.

And that doesn’t even begin to address the technological problems.

they may also be required to implement age verification

They are already required. Australia is requiring them to do exactly that. It’s a safe bet that this will be ignored for now, at least outside of Australia.

Suppose the fediverse wanted to comply, what do you think the volunteers running it would have to do?

I can’t really make sense of that. Do you understand that Lemmy instances are run by just some random people?

I see that you’ve changed your opinion, OP, but I still have a question.

How did seeing this as positive go together with being on the fediverse? How do the volunteers running this thing cope with these demands?

More generally: How can the open internet survive if every local government makes its own rules about what information or service you may or mustn’t give its citizens?

Come join the fediverse. Now illegal in Australia!

It gets my attention but I don’t really see the mainstream appeal.

Sensible strategy for both sides, though I think Disney was a bit more desperate for a deal. Licensing characters makes it easier for Disney to win Fair Use cases. Meanwhile, if Fair Use is beaten back, then OpenAI may be able to finally create a moat for itself. Challengers would have to either obtain a license or employ expensive filtering. Both would make it rather harder for start-ups.

Very unlikely, in the eyes of the US court system. They have no EU physical presence, and aren’t advertising targeting EU people.

That’s exactly the thing. US courts don’t care about foreign laws in the first place. They don’t care about a EU presence at all.

Nevertheless, the EU demands that any websites, internet services, … that are offered to EU users follow EU laws like GDPR. If it’s in a language not spoken in the EU, then it’s probably fine. If lemmy.today declared that it was specifically for Oregonians, that would likely be fine, too. But anything in English that is offered globally, is a potential target.

That should not be taken lightly. If the 4chan people travelled to UK, they would probably be arrested. They will have to watch out when they travel abroad if the country might assist the UK and arrest and arrest them. If they ever acquire property abroad, that might be seized.

Fedi-servers in the EU certainly have to follow these regulations.

You know how 4chan is doing business in the UK? In the same way, lemmy.today is doing business in the EU.

This ruling is not likely to have immediate consequences for the fediverse, since the GDPR is not enforced much.

I don’t think it is actually impossible, as the headline claims. Platforms that have already been on the receiving of enforcement are probably fine, eg Facebook.

I had just heard the expression: “It helps the general effort.” It was in a Discworld audiobook. It made me think: “Yeah, I could use some help right now.” That was still rattling around in my head when I had to come up with a username. I don’t remember what I was having trouble with, so I guess that worked out.

Yeah, one would think so. And those were the hobbyists that Gates was addressing in that open letter.

“They” is the copyright industry. The same people, who are suing AI companies for money, want the Internet Archive gone for more money.

I share the fear that the copyrightists reach a happy compromise with the bigger AI companies and monopolize knowledge. But for now, AI companies are fighting for Fair Use. The Internet Archive is already benefitting from those precedents.

In the US, copyright is limited by Fair Use. It is still IP. Eventually, you’d just be changing how Fair Use works. Not all for the better, I think.

Maybe one could compare it to a right of way over someone’s physical property. The public may use it for a certain purpose, in a limited way, which lowers its value. But what value it has, belongs to the owner.

What kind of person owned a computer as a hobby in 1976?

That’s true in the same way that Trump’s tariffs are paid by other countries. Which is to say: Not at all.

Bill Gates was no billionaire at the time. His background was probably shared by almost all computer hobbyists at the time.