Intent def is there too though, much of this is entrenching, and much of it is a power grab (esp US tech at the mo), to get from capital/tech concentration to coopting governance structures

AI is a tech where by design it is not lowering a participation threshold, it positions itself as bigger-than-us, like nuclear reactors, not just anyone can run with it. That only after 3 years we see a budding diy / individual agency angle shows as much. It was only designed to create and entrench power (or transform it to another form), other digital techs originate as challenge to power, this one clearly the opposite. The companies involved fight against things that push towards smaller than us ai tech, like local offline first. E.g. DMA/DSA

US democratic community site notices the Trump admin steps against DSA enforcement, and describes it well.

US admin sanctioned people involved in shaping the DSA. The wilfull misreading of DMA, DSA, AIR, GDPR in the US and bigtech is a clear confirmation of its need for the European market.

Article seems too narrow in looking at the dynamics. Tech platforms are not the context, single market and market rules and access are, including outside digital. Meaning every other party dealing with platforms has a very different set of considerations when choosing platforms of any size. Loss of market access is not about the tech, but about whether there are others willing to do business with you.

The US admin escalation is likely a spasm, and if not a cause of bifurcation rather than response. The base case is shoulder shrugs anywhere outside the USA. The endpoint is no market access for non-compliant platforms of any size. Which does not mean a ban or tech blockade, but the absence of possibility to interact with the EU market as corporates, including the ad market e.g. The law of two feet is the largest fine here (not just the platforms need to be compliant, their businesspartners too, and for them to walk is the cheaper compliance path.

Not a wild card (The wild card is the zero sum behaviour of US admin), but an aimed for outcome. Standardisation, transparency and interoperability are key digital policy aims. Note that it is exactly what big tech is clamoring against at the moment.

This is not second order, but a primary policy aim for the EU digital single market.

Regulatory differences are of all time and splinternet it is not, which implies hard (tech) breaks. Additionally the DSA is unifying for Europe, part of the digital single market. It only looks like divergence to any incumbents outside the EU.

Not really, it does not favor scale, as it's progressive compliance. The next sentence says as much. One platform's bifurcation is the same as having two smaller ones, who have less compliance costs and thus won't be crushed. Which is already the case even, global platforms already cater to diff regulatory regimes (and morally questionable at that). The underlying faulty assumption is that of global platforms for everyone and everything being the desired outcome at all. SV thinking and funding is the root cause. Other paths exist, just not in their world. Zebra's not unicorns. [[Zebra bedrijven zijn beter 20190907063530]] Vgl physical e.g. the German industrial base actually is one of many medium sized orgs being market leaders in some niche, not the car manufacturers usually mentioned as such.

yes, likely in the short term. Thing is: once people globally see the outcome of those diff modes, which will they prefer? Vgl GDPR

yes, it means the USA cannot be treated as an equal or rational counterpart. n:: EU moving to adversarial interoperability in a sense? n:: Brusselscountereffect?

in contradiction to the entrenching above. Of these adtech is the key thing, and algorithms aimed for engagement (ie rage)

Not following. By def the strictest stuff applies to the largest platforms, so no moat. n:: The compliance burden is progressive, like taxes are /should be.

Yes, such paragraphs need to be up front.

yes, sort of. 'distribution layer of democracy' interesting phrase. amplification, throttling, monetisation (Freudian misspelling there?), discoverability all important. But the key thing: the platforms in question are not platforms in the strict sense, they actively shape the information there. So liability protections for platforms should not apply. Or gov also can set the boundaries of such shaping.

There are many other fines levied (all without making any dents in the behaviour fined though), the 120ME one for Twitter was the first under DSA illegal content rules (which don't specify what illegal content, but mechanisms for moderation against them)

The choice of words is wrong on many diff levels. Global / censorship / industrial complex, three diff long explanations. One would need more populist labels for the actual character of platforms (not just bigtech) afoul of the DSA

Sanctioned are Thierry Breton (EC in the previous period), and people from the Global Disinformation Index, and HateAid. Such orgs have a role in research into the inner workings of platforms.

DSA aspects

This is the key statement. Increasingly Meta is pushed towards accountability, including inside the US. That push is bad for their business bc their core business model is founded on factors that can only keep 'growing' if there is no accountability.

Meta's step is also a hedge against DSA fall-out. Whereas the current US gov was acting towards similar conditions removing contrast beween DSA en US regs, increasing the contrast allows Meta to be a victim. Using the word 'censorship' is a tell in itself, as that is not what the DSA does.

Meta might be running into UK OSA too. - [ ] zoek de UK online safety act op en vergelijk structuur met DSA #eudata #30mins

https://web.archive.org/web/20250108054628/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/07/ditching-facebook-factcheckers-major-step-back-public-discourse

Meta/FB decision to remove factchecking likely puts it at odds with the EU DSA. Likely that's why the announcement includes 'starting in the US'. Clashes certain in EU.

in queue/stack questions see whether they are saying to print the front or top element or remove and print the front and top elm. if they r just saying to print the top/front elm then track them st[st.length-1] or que[0], if they r saying remove and print then console.log(que.shift())

The problem in your code seems to be with the way you’re handling the push operation and printing the result. Here’s a breakdown of the issues and improvements you can make:

Incorrect Console Output on Enqueue (push):

The push method in JavaScript returns the new length of the array, not the element that was pushed. So, let enter = que.push(input[i][1]) assigns the length of the queue to enter, not the element that was added. Instead, you should directly print the element that was added to the queue. Correcting the console.log for Enqueue:

Replace console.log(enter) with console.log(input[i][1]) to print the element being added to the queue instead of the length of the queue.

Revisiting this after 2yrs, now as board member of mastodon.nl, need to read relevant DSA sections again, and think about if/how this applies. The list here as such is almost completely covered by default, except for the reports, which will come as we're heading towards ANBI status anyway.

-[ ] lees DSA met mastodon.nl bril tav kleine platforms #activityclub #30mins

https://web.archive.org/web/20240611111852/https://theconversation.com/ai-chatbots-are-intruding-into-online-communities-where-people-are-trying-to-connect-with-other-humans-229473

creepy uncanny valley stuff. Platform sanctioned bots insinuating themselves in spots where the expected context is 100% human interaction, undisclosed, and with the aim to mimick interaction to lock in engagement ('cause #adtech) Making the group of people a means. One wonders if this reaches the emotional influencing threshold in the EU legal framework

Zuckerman mentions the DSA as his single hope, the only surprisal in this piece. Although the DMA is important wrt the silos too, as is the GDPR, it is the DSA that has the transparency reqs, plus actually describes the outside research access Zuckerman sees frustrated as mandatory. Says enforcement is slow however. Yes, at the same time it's not just reactive enforcement. It's about EU market access, pro-active disclosures are mandatory.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230507143729/https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_2413

The EC has designated the first batch of VLOP and VLOSE under the DSA

consultation on data access to researchers is opened until 25 May. t:: need to better read Article 41? wrt this access. Lots of conspiracytalk around it re censorship, what does the law say?

Which is why DSA and DMA target larger entities beyond that start-up scale.

This is I think an incorrect way of picturing it. Moderation isn't bottom-up, that again implies seeing the fediverse as a whole. Moderation is taking place in each 'shop' in a 'city center', every 'shop' has its own house rules. And that is the only level of granularity that counts, the system as a whole isn't a system entity. Like road systems, e-mail, postal systems, internet infra etc. aren't either.

Does it become more complex in federation? Don't think so as it also means that the reach and impact of each of those small instances is by def limited. Most of the fediverse will never see most of the fediverse. Thus it likely flies under any ceiling that incurs new responsibilities.

50ppl and >10M turnover for a single instance (mastodon.social runs on 50k in donations or so)? Don't see that happening, and if, how likely is it that will be in the European market? Where would such turnover come from anyways, it isn't adverts so could only be member fees as donations don't count? Currently it's hosters that make money, for keeping the infra humming.

Almost by definition federated instances don't qualify as large platform.

Mastodon instances, other than personal or closed ones, would fall within the DSA. Each instance is its own platform though. Because of that I don't think this holds up very well, are closed Discord servers platforms under the DSA too then? Most of these instances are small, many don't encourage new users (meaning the potential reach is very limited). For largers ones like mastodon.nl this probably does apply.

Total indifference? The moment of the law's passing in July was the end of years of discussion and debate. The proposal was published at the end of 2020, and had been years in the making. Also it's a continuation of pre-existing regulations. Things only come suddenly if you haven't been paying attention to the process.

This is BS. There is every need to base yourself on the legislative text itself. There's nothing tortuous about that text.

Complexity table STL

STL Summary

Bitwise Hacks - No BS

Collision reduction in Hash Tables : Open Addressing

Detailed overview of stl containers

Quick summary of stl

asdasd