Comment by oneplane
5 months ago
Because that is what is democratically voted for? If the people (or the representatives they voted for) say that society having access to that data is what society wants, then the company can either provide that data, or have it taken from them.
There should not be a scenario where a company "beats" society.
Almost all of the countries we label as "democracies" have constitutions, and many of those constitutions limit what can be "democratically voted for". In the United States, the constitution has strict limits on ceaseing private property. That does not mean the US is not "democratic" by common usage of the term. Those living in democracies that thus protect private property rights may find laws that encroach on those private property rights odd, and be against them. Even in a country that has no such protections, one may be against such laws.
We are aware of the problems the US has. But the question "Why would anyone in a democracy accept" is easily answered, and as such I did.
As for the statements on encroachment or protections: this is about public data, not about private data or secrets.
The argument made in court is about research facilities due to the outsized impact X can make. You want to play in someone else's country, you'll have to follow their rules. This works the other way around as well, if a German company were to host their data in the US, they would have to accept that the government can snoop on that data whenever they want since the US does not protect German citizens. (and as such, privacy laws in Germany and in the EU since around 1995 do not allow private data to be transferred by default)
Something more countries might want to do is protect citizens from large corporations. They are not your friends.
Okay, I can see your point. I thought this was under the question "Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this?" but I see now it was a response to the other question that was response to that question.
It seems like that phrase "democracy" means different things to different people, depending on where they are from.
Let’s not pretend anybody voted directly for this or was even aware of this law when they cast their vote.
DSA and DMA is widely known, but perhaps not by their acronyms or every individual rule.
I don't know in what country you live, but this was not exactly some hidden issue, in almost all member states this was a local issue and had local news coverage as well.
The only way someone would not have been aware is if they spent none of their time on any local or global reports. But in those cases, everything is going to be something they are unaware of and we'd be talking about people who are essentially disconnecting themselves from society. Everyone else would have heard about it multiple times since even local elections made a point of mentioning it, and election turnout is high, even if you don't participate yourself for some reason, it would be really hard to not have talked to anyone who did.
No but we vote for people to do that on our behalf.
And X is not just any company, it has high influence potential on society. And Musk has already openly tried to influence elections here.
It's Americans having an issue with this, not Germans.
DMA is very popular among EU voters.
[flagged]
You're mixing a whole lot of things in a big ball of mud here, with a lot of half-truths and assumptions. Are you doing that on purpose?
This is not about data that is private, it's not a 'copy of your private data against your wishes', it's research access to public data that has impact on civil society due to the outsized impact on daily life some multinationals have.
As for 'liberty': corporations are not people, if anything, society should be free to not have commercial meddling involved in their life. As with everything else there is a gradient here, it's not some extreme choice there either everything is allowed or nothing is allowed. But messing with society is something that is worth preventing, intentional or not. It takes data and research to do that. In most cases, public data, and that is what this is about.
Which half truths?
Define public data.
Which researchers will have access? Who decides upon them and what is their specific objective? Can I have access to it for my research?
> commercial meddling
What do you mean by this? Who is meddling and with what?
The user of social media has a personal engagement with that company. I don't think a government should be involved in that relationship. Why do you think it should?