Someone once explained it to me.

Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.

What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don’t like. So they don’t mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.

And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.

I’d assume they’re danish actors based on the article

In Denmark, the “right of integrity means that even in cases where you are allowed to make use of a work, you are not allowed to change it or use it in a way or in a context that infringes the author’s literary or artistic reputation or uniqueness,” a resource for Danish researchers noted.

Infringes reputation is so sooo broad. It comes down to who does the judge like the most, no? Reddit mods will always be way down on the list, as the judicial inclined tend to be technologically illiterate.

Also, the reddit mod is not jailed. In most of europe “prison” sentences like this are conditional sentences.

commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws.

They’re not?

They’re listing 2 possibilities:

Status quo: the whole AI (and tech in general) remains foreign controlled.

EU makes a change in GDPR Law

Maybe you can add a third option, like: “Perhaps GDPR law isn’t the reason why AI and tech sector in EU is so non-existant”, and a constructive conversation could’ve been had.

Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?

Yes.

when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote

That’s sadly incorrect. You responded to an incorrect assumption made about the original comment.

explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation

I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.

coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.

I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?

Sadly, my experience is the same

Good luck to them!

Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval.

Do some people’s brains really work like that? I prefer it when people simply describe a problem, instead of making it all tribal and mixing reality with opinion!

The quality of discourse on lemmy is fucking dire.

Amen. A large fraction of the people on lemmy lack empathy and the ability to consider other viewpoints in general. Very anti-social, close minded crowd.

DeepSeek is it’s own model, designed and trained from ground up. It’s a novel architecture even. Impressive work.

It’s not a ‘stolen from the US’ model.

There does appear to be something special going on in the EU in that we can’t seem to participate on a technological level since the 80s. Making the block industrially irrelevant, which has had grave geopolitical consequences already.

GDPR is a barrier for EU companies only

It’s the tradeoff that’s happening. Maybe you’ve alternative solutions?

Anything you don’t like can be called that.

I think the point is that the EU isn’t participating in the software industry, including AI, at all.

I think Ray Dalio’s take on it is correct. It’s a consequence of currency devaluation, as people in general vote against the decrease in spending necessary to deflate the asset bubble. (1)

Even when it’s reverse? grants being conditional on DEI action has been a long time thing already

Boiling the frog 👍

I have: here’s the relevant paragraph from the directive:

Amendment 186 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Disseminating pornographic content online without putting in place robust and effective age verification tools to effectively prevent children from accessing pornographic content online shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.

Pinky promise is explicitely not allowed.

And you’re doing the exact thing: blaming the specific implementation 🙂 It’s so sad that that still tricks people. Is this your first time learning how a EU directive works?

No, it’s saying that exact thing: online users of porn must be deanonymised on penalty of prison. To stop child abuse because that’s related somehow?

It’s just that the countries themselves must choose the particulates: who will do the deanonymisation, in what way, what will enforcement look like, etc.

That’s what they mean with “the final shape of the law hasn’t been determined yet”.

Every EU directive works that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)

A directive is a legal act of the European Union[1] that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals

In this case: the de-anonymisation must happen. Up to the respective countries to do the dirty work.

When people, rightfully, get angry the local politician will say “we had to because EU”. And the EU will say “well we didn’t say it had to be in that way, it’s your local politician that did that.”

That’s simply how any EU directive works: EU decides what must happen, and it’s up to the individual countries to put it into their respective laws.

That way people get angry at their federal government instead. Who can point their finger higher up. Who can then point to the countries specific implementation in their turn. It’s a neat trick. Nobody’s responsible for anything.

the law works against its intentions

When has that ever stopped a puritan?