The biggest players in social media are precisely the ones that this law is targeting.
No one in charge of implementing this law is going to care whether some Mastodon server implements a special auth solution for Danish users or not, they are going to care that Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc. do so.
And if that little Mastodon server ends up hosting some content that is embarrassing or offensive to the Danish authorities, laws like this will surely not be used to retaliate...
Arbitrarily and selectively enforced laws seem like an obviously bad thing to me. If the government can nail me for anything, even if they practically don't, I'll be very wary of offending or embarrassing the government.
The law will obviously be framed in such a way as to hit the targets it is supposed to hit, avoid collateral damage. It's not like complete amateurs are writing our laws.
I responded by explaining why that wouldn't be a good thing.
Have you changed your mind on that point or are you simply not keeping track of your argument? Either way there can't be an honest discussion whether you have the memory of a goldfish or are deliberately ignoring what you've said.
Why would they, though, if "no one in charge of implementing this law is going to care whether some Mastodon server implements a special auth solution for Danish users or not"? The EU CSAR proposal (which Denmark seem very much on board with) doesn't make such exceptions, so why should this law?
> A law isn't a headline on Hacker News, it's a carefully written document.
This is a non sequitur, and also pure speculation.