On Tuesday, Parliament held the final vote on the new Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), following a deal reached between Parliament and Council on 23 April and 24 March respectively. The two bills aim to address the societal and economic effects of the tech industry by setting clear standards for how they operate and provide services in the EU, in line with the EU’s fundamental rights and values.
The Digital Services Act was adopted with 539 votes in favour, 54 votes against and 30 abstentions. The Digital Markets Act – with 588 in favour, 11 votes against and 31 abstentions.
The DSA and DMA will fundamentally change the way big technology companies operate, and as consumers we’ll enjoy the fruits of far less lock-in and more competition. Things like alternative application stores and sideloading on iOS, or interoperability between messaging services, are going to be amazing.
It will be interesting to see which way this heads, it may be another case of the outcome not matching the predictions.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how this is actually implemented.
A simple thought exercise on Twitter, to be on the safer side:
1) Algorithmic accountability: Access to algorithms is interesting. But by whom, and which algorithm? Just on the anti-abuse systems, there would be 20+ of them (spam detection, porn detection, ddos detection, …). And how will Twitter be compensated, for example, if an EU official were to leak trade secrets to third parties?
2) Swift removal of illegal content online: Again another interesting topic. A tweet illegal by Turkey’s regime might be perfectly reasonable in UK (I know neither are in EU, just to give an example).
3, and 4 might not apply to twitter, not sure…
5) Victims of cyber violence will be better protected: Very good intentions. However given no automated detection system is perfect, unless the source, i.e: the perpetrator is stopped, it might just be a vehicle to punish twitter for something they cannot possibly prevent
Other interesting items:
*) Protection of minors: Without reading the full text, I am not sure which way this will go. The similar UK provision basically requires all online accounts to be set up using a credit card or another mechanism to verify age. Will this be possible while still enabling anonymity?
*) Special measures in times of crisis: up 3 months of special rules during crisis. What could possibly go wrong?
Anyway, this will probably be a starting point, and actual implementation will be subject to negotiations, “thinly veiled threats”, court cases, open protests, and possibly some fines. But eventually, possibly in 5-10 years, things will settle. Hopefully, for a better Internet in the EU.
@sukru
I immediately thought of that poor cyber violence victim Vladimir Putin, and all those bad people that he recently named and shamed for bullying him!
We have a name for cyber bullies like that in the west, we call them “investigative journalists!”
cpcf,
Let us not forget all the bureaucrats, politicians, and even heads of states that are in the same camp
I’m not sure how it is across the pond, but here in the US anyone can go into a supermarket or corner store and purchase a prepaid debit/credit card anonymously with cash. It may vary by state, but I know in my state there’s no age requirement for making such a purchase, and no ID is required to do so. If questioned, a child could easily say it’s meant as a gift card for a parent’s birthday or something like that.
I honestly don’t know how that works in the EU.
Here in the US, it is (was?) still possible to even buy a burner phone with cash, and don’t need to register the SIM card in your name.
(Though I am sure they are keeping this option open so that they can cross join your ID with location data).
This will work about as well as self repairing iPhones through Apple. Technically you can but in practice it’s a joke.
Out of curiosity: Why is it a joke? I understand that some of their opener tools are a bit complicated, but did you ever think that the official opening instructions given to Apple Geniuses for opening an iPhone 13 are “use guitar picks and a steady hand” like iFixit recommends? Of course not. Or that they repair touchscreens by separating the layers with dental floss like JerryRigEverything does it? Of course not, they replace the whole part.
So, as long as independents have access to the same tools and know-how that Apple Geniuses receive, there is no “abuse of position” by the manufacturer. Then it’s up to the buyer to place a value on repairability and take it into account in the purchase decision process.
kurkosdr,
I agree, but also wanted to point out something not yet mentioned: making these tools available is good not just for end users but for local specialists supporting those end users. For my parents it was 1+ hour trip both ways to travel to an apple store on top of the time they’d need to wait at the store. Having more competition means consumers have more choices than the apple repair monopoly, which has been documented abusing customers on multiple occasions.
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/cbc-hidden-camera-investigates-apple-repair/
Even apple’s own public statement asserts the value in making the parts widely available…
That’s the whole point of “right to repair” legislation: Giving independents the same access to parts and know-how that the official stores have so the independents don’t have to MacGuyver solutions like opening iPhones with guitar picks and so they don’t have to use non-genuine or second-hand replacement parts, so that the manufacturer doesn’t hold a monopoly over repairs. People who repair their gadgets at home do exist, but they are not the majority.
kurkosdr,
Yes but I think the OP may have only been thinking in terms of DIY home repairs, which is why I wanted to state it explicitly.
A small step in hopefully the right direction.
Proof of identity is a scary concept. Lets say i criticize the iranian mullahs, putin, maduro, xi, or the saudi royal house, lets say simply that Khashoggi was a scary example set alongside all tjse millions of imprisoned, tortured and murdered throuchout the last century for voicing thoughts and beliefs.
At the same time a web without proof of identity is seeing Russian trolls pose as locals and use other country’s dumb people to destroy western democracy. For individuals it’s bad, but maybe not for humanity and societies as groups.
Trolls gotta troll.
Democracy’s biggest flaw seems to be the people. Let’s get rid of them.
But it can also have a chilling effect. I know I self-censor out of concern for what I could be penalized for in 10 or 20 years.
ssokolow,
Indeed. In the US the trump administration officially started a government register of social media accounts for visa applications. Big brother wants to track you from twitter to github.
https://tech.co/news/us-immigration-social-media-details-2019-06
It’s a decade too late and there’s already been a tremendous amount of damage by corporate gatekeeping, but I am in support of the digital markets act to ensure fair competition and choice for users. I hope those of us outside the EU get to benefit from it as well.
However the digital services act is going to put powerful government agencies in charge of far more subjective social value interests. And to be honest that’s kind of scary. It may be a case of good intentions, but under authoritarian officials these laws have the potential to do a great deal of harm to our liberties and selectively target groups that political officials don’t like. Keep in mind these aren’t all that different from oversight laws that china forced hong kong to adapt. The whole world knew that those were thinly veiled weapons that the chinese government would abuse, and abuse them they did. While the EU is not China, the rise of authoritarianism worldwide is extremely concerning even in democratic states and it’s with this backdrop that I have strong concerns for these kinds of laws over public values.
https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-global-decline-democracy-has-accelerated
Alfman,
Have to say this is a better explanation than I could do.
The unfortunate truth is even the democratic leaderships have shown some dark spots. Thanks to the recent invasion in Ukraine, and these leaders’ past and present ties to the putin’s regime, some actions were problematic to say the least.
For the Internet, I would argue we need less centralization, not more. But it might already be too late to change the current momentum.
sukru,
It’s being suggested that such a highly politicized supreme court in the US can open up the flood gates to more attacks on democratic institutions. They’ve already green lit states to conduct even more political gerrymandering. But things could get significantly worse for democracy if they end up allowing state legislators to pick electors instead of voters themselves.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics/independent-state-legislature-theory-what-matters/index.html
I hope this never becomes more than a hypothetical argument. however given recent events and state legislators trying it for the last presidential elections I think the alarms should be ringing now. The GOP as a party has been systematically replacing it’s old school conservatives with a new nasty breed of “party over country” politician who will attack even their own for putting country over party. Once the federal pendulum swings back under GOP control, and it will, I worry that they will be too corrupt to refrain from the temptations of taking down the remaining barriers to single party control over elections.
It could spell out the end of free elections in the US. Ironically enough the party responsible for chipping away at the pillars of democracy has been extremely successful at using divisive politics to shift blame for the problems they are creating to the other party (ie “dems are stealing the elections”). Unfortunately they’re learning that lying doesn’t matter and there are few negative repercussions politically for doing so, in fact many of their lies have becoming rallying calls.
As much as people fear external actors like putin, and with good reason, I think the biggest risk to our country today may be coming from within. In an affirmation of godwin’s law, we may be witnessing similar conditions to the social/political environment that created hitler. And much like what propelled hitler, there are swarms of ignorant voters who are willing to vote in tyrants to get at the other party. Most are oblivious to their role as pawns in a subversive battle by authoritarians to take control over the country. They may genuinely believe in democracy, but through clever manipulation they may be helping to build the monster that ends up overthrowing it 🙁
Alfman,
Ironically, the “solution” is already built-in. But politicians will want to have their cake and eat it, too.
If the US work as a Federal body, like a “super EU”, president will have more limited powers, but can be elected directly by the states. (In EU it is a rotation). So can the senators (again EU has similar appointed bodies).
If the US work as a direct presidency like France, than there needs to be more direct involvement of the public.
It was initially designed as a federal body, but today seems to act as a single state. Which causes most current problems.
Personally, my preference would be more separation of powers. A single point of failure, where a bad person can be appointed potentially for life should terrify every democratic person.
We can describe what altruistic is, and as such clearly identify the opposite, but we need a label to that can be universally applied to identify someone as the very opposite of those we despise, so that we can promote the best examples of selfless behaviour!
It’s naïvé to believe that simply making more laws will somehow force people and other entities towards altruism, optimism is no replacement for caution, and pessimism still has it’s place.
I get that we must still try, but we should never think of any decision we(humanity) make as a solution, there is no solution only a direction.
The concept of “force” is just another example of a naivéty!
I’m a firm believer that humanity is lazy and greedy, make the right thing to do the easy and profitable solution and humanity will do it by default.
cpcf,
A question I ponder from time to time is whether genuinely selfless behavior can ultimately win against selfish adversaries particularly in situations involving no accountability. Take gerrymandering as an example. The democratic party (not always but generally) attracts voters who are against gerrymandering and other election controlling gimmicks because fair elections are considered important to democracy. Yet these very values of election fairness can reduce ones own representation when put into practice. Sometimes they have to numerically win by 60% or more of the population to have seats in congress. This advantage in congress extends to the supreme court, which has been under a GOP majority for over 50 years.
Some of us strongly believe in a government of checks and balances. But what happens when, in practice, those checks and balances are only applied to your party when they are in control but not the other party when they are in control? it creates quite the conundrum. Is the only way to win against an adversary who is willing to manipulate and corrupt elections to do the same?
IMHO it’s a damn shame this pandora’s box was opened at all. The manipulators are gaining power because of said manipulation, but in recognizing this reality the question now becomes should we be encouraging our own politicians to undertake the same undemocratic manipulations to increase the odds of having legislative and judicial representation?
I hate the hypocrisy, but at the same time the moral victory for not cheating isn’t enough when the other party is left with all the power to overturn and destroy what you value.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1103595898/supreme-court-epa-climate-change
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-supreme-court-ending-federal-abortion-rights.html
Alfman,
US politics… Not a nice topic…
However if you think only one party is taking part in Gerrymandering, you might be surprised to know Democrats have actually Gerrymandered more effectively in the recent years:
https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms
And they had to be stopped by courts for going too far:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/court-rules-ny-democrats-gerrymandered-congressional-map-rcna25549
It is a common pastime of all politicians. Interestingly the “name father”, Elbridge Gerry was part of the so called “Democratic-Republican Party”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party
sukru,
Personally I think your vox link backs up my point….
Gerrymandering in modern times was employed more by republicans on average. They’re the party putting the peddle to the metal with manipulation and the democrat adaptation tended to be more reactionary but unfortunately we’ll probably see more of it out of necessity.
https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-gerrymanders-more-republicans-or-democrats/
I’d be willing to bet that even still, more democrats find gerrymandering manipulation completely distasteful. However given that one party cannot control the gerrymandering of the other party that creates an ultimatum: one’s party can do what’s morally right, loosing representation every election, or accept that vote manipulation is needed to balance the field against an opponent with no moral quandaries.
What your talking about is centuries old history, which I honestly don’t know much about…it’s interesting history.
https://www.history.com/news/gerrymandering-origins-voting
In the 1960s the supreme court did come down against gerrymandering. It creeped back up with perfected computer modeling.
BTW politically I don’t consider myself a democrat or republican. I’m more of an outsider and I’d like to see this duopoly stranglehold on politics be broken up. Alas antitrust doesn’t apply to politics so we end up stuck with this one dimensional choice between parties, which is terribly constraining for the electorate especially when both parties are failing us. There are mathematical systems that would offer much better representation like rank voting, but for better or worse we were dealt the system we have.
I’ll take this more seriously when I start seeing usb-c iPhones. Apple hasn’t even pretended it’s going to comply.