He said Meta would “work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more”.
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.
He cited Europe as a place with “an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative”
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.
We are looking closely at Meta’s announcement impacting its US platform. The UK’s Online Safety Act will oblige them to remove illegal content and content harmful to children here in the UK, and we continue to urge social media companies to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation hosted on their platforms.”
Meta might be running into UK OSA too. - [ ] zoek de UK online safety act op en vergelijk structuur met DSA #eudata #30mins
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())
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.
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.
each of these instances will need to comply with a set of minimumobligations for intermediary and hosting services, including having a single point of contact and legal representative, providing clear terms and conditions, publishing bi-annual transparency reports, having a notice and action mechanism and, communicating information about removals or restrictions to both notice and content providers
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
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
If there is any hope for our ability to understand what really happens on social media next year, it may come from the European Union, where the Digital Services Act demands transparency from platforms operating on the continent. But enforcement actions are slow, and wars and elections are fast by comparison. The surge of disinformation around Israel and Gaza may point to a future in which what happens online is literally unknowable.
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.
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?
The last thing Europe wants is its regulation that restricts future innovation, raising barriers to entry for new businesses and users alike.
Which is why DSA and DMA target larger entities beyond that start-up scale.
There is no central authority or control that one could point to and hold responsible for content moderation practices; instead, moderation happens in an organic bottom-up manner
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.
Since moderation in major social media platforms is conducted by a central authority, the DSA can effectively hold a single entity accountable through obligations. This becomes more complex in decentralized networks, where content moderation is predominantly community-driven.
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.
what will it mean if an instance ends up generating above EUR 10 million in annual turnover or hires more than 50 staff members? Under the DSA, if these thresholds are met the administrators of that instance would need to proceed to the implementation of additional requirements, including a complaint handling system, cooperation with trusted flaggers and out-of-court dispute bodies, enhanced transparency reporting and the adoption of child protection measures, as well as the banning of dark patterns. Failure to comply with these obligations may result in fines or the geo-blocking of the instance across the EU market.
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.
Today– given the non-profit model and limited, volunteer administration of most existing instances– all Mastodon servers would seem to be exempt from obligations for large online platforms
Almost by definition federated instances don't qualify as large platform.
However, based on the categorizations of the DSA, it is most probable that each instance could be seen as an independent ‘online platform’ on which a user hosts and publishes content that can reach a potentially unlimited number of users. Thus, each of these instances will need to comply with a set of minimum obligations for intermediary and hosting services, including having a single point of contact and legal representative, providing clear terms and conditions, publishing bi-annual transparency reports, having a notice and action mechanism and, communicating information about removals or restrictions to both notice and content providers.
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.
The law in question is the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which was passed by the European Parliament last July 5th amidst almost total indifferenc
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.
Again, there is no need to enter into the tortuous details of the legislative text to show this
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
Containers library From cppreference.com < cpp
Detailed overview of stl containers
Quick summary of stl
MediaWi
asdasd