Comment by CrossVR | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CrossVR | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> VW was caught, by US authorities, violating EU laws, and it transpired that EU officials had been lobbying to enable VW and other EU champions to continue to do so.

X was caught, by EU authorities, violating EU anti-trust laws, and US officials are lobbying to enable X and other Big Tech companies to continue to do so.

> My root reply in this thread was flagged, despite being stunningly milquetoast, in a transparent attempt to hide any inconvenient dissenting view, which is precisely what the EU are trying to do.

To the contrary, the DSA would've likely protected your comment. It requires that if content was flagged or removed a clear reason has to be stated for its removal with the ability to appeal it. Neither of which is offered by Hacker News because the DSA does not apply to it and so your comment was removed without a stated reason nor the ability to appeal it.

Big Tech companies don't want to protect free speech, they just want to maintain their unchecked moderation power on their platforms.

> X was caught, by EU authorities, violating EU anti-trust laws

But where have X violated US law? It clearly continues to confuse that EU law does not, in fact, have any relevance outside of the EU. If the EU want to start blocking things on the net then just shut up and do it already.

VW were breaking EU and US law, but the EU were actively enabling them continuing to do so until the US pointed it out so that it could no longer be swept under the carpet.

> To the contrary, the DSA would've likely protected your comment. It requires that if content was flagged or removed a clear reason has to be stated for its removal with the ability to appeal it. Neither of which is offered by Hacker News because the DSA does not apply to it and so your comment was removed without a stated reason nor the ability to appeal it

More rule by hopium nonsense.

Plenty of people already have experience of being deplatformed with zero explanation by this same lobby, there is no chance that would not continue, they would simply find their complaints also deplatformed so you would have no idea.

HN probably would be covered by the DSA too, it's just off the radar for now. If ever this became a hotbed of widely taken seriously EU criticism you can bet it would suddenly get the book thrown at it.

> But where have X violated US law? It clearly continues to confuse that EU law does not, in fact, have any relevance outside of the EU.

Then why did the US fine VW if US law does not have any relevance to companies headquartered outside of the US? The US did not, in fact, fine VW based on EU law.

The US publicly pointing out VW were breaking EU standards forced the EU to deal with it. Both of them took action in their respective jurisdictions.

So why were EU regulators all A-OK with this until the US pointed it out?

Because the car industry is incredibly powerful and an important of the European economy. Just like Big Tech is incredibly powerful and an important part of the US economy.

I'm certain that if VW was a US company the current administration would've been A-OK with them flaunting regulations and would've defended US economic interests against fines from the EU.

This was my precise point in my original root reply to you which provoked this incredible meltdown from you lot to the point of even getting it flagged! (Someone has now unflagged it).

Only the competing forces with other geopolitical actors keep them remotely honest. The EU, demonstrably, is not an honest organization without this.

> Only the competing forces with other geopolitical actors keep them remotely honest.

If competition between unions is important, then why not allow the EU to set up its own rules? Perhaps the US is wrong this time and the DSA will result in a more fair market and better online discourse as promised.

Or it will turn into a authoritarian censorship machine, then at least the US will know never to adopt something similar. But we won't solve anything by just maintaining the status quo and attacking anyone that tries to enforce their own set of rules within their own jurisdiction.

If X doesn't want to deal with those rules they are free to leave.

> But where have X violated US law? It clearly continues to confuse that EU law does not, in fact, have any relevance outside of the EU.

US law is not relevant in the EU. As long as X makes itself available in our sovereign lands, they have to follow our law our bear the consequence.

As a parallel, fresh raw milk cheese is not allowed to be sold in the US despite being very popular in France (and tasty!). That means French cheesemakers need to limit which cheeses they sell over there, even though their local laws don't restrict them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com