eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Server stats:

241
active users

Today: workshop with lawyers at the @EU_Commission:

The mandates Meta to "enable end users to freely choose to opt-in to [combining or cross-using personal data] by offering a less personalised but equivalent alternative".

When I pointed out to Meta that by offering users to either to or pay € 275 per year for & isn't "equivalent alternative" they said, Meta *has* to do that because of 😤 Really??

Background: had outlined in depth how all other instances of personal data cross-use and combination across services have now a real consent screen included that enables people to choose data use or "less personalised but equivalent" alternatives; aka not paid (as required by DMA Art 5.2).

Just not for ads, presumably because this would impact Meta's bottom line.

lobbyist: "Nothing in this space is as secure and tried and tested as the protocol."

CC @signalapp

Ouh, so I just asked /#WhatsApp whether with @matrix (should they request it) would apply to @element Inc, the Matrix.org reference server, or the entire federation?

Answer: probably the legal entity, so either Element Inc or the Matrix Foundation. I assume they would have to choose which server this includes.

But (did I hear that correctly?) the Meta person almost sounded as if a broadening to the federation could potentially be envisaged in the future.

In any event, it sounds like is planning to make opt-in only; but not in the way I suggested, which is give WA users a yes/no button when a non-WA user asks to connect, just like does already for Signal users.

I interpret 's response to my question as meaning that WA users will have to actively switch on interop in the settings before people can ping them.

Today: compliance workshop with / :)

While Alphabet seems to be better in terms of the new & choice screens, they have a strange view regarding their new obligation to allow un-installing pre-installed apps like or :

Alphabet's lobbyists argue un-install and remove are two different things and as the 's Art 6(3) only mandates un-install but not removal, the current "deactivation" feature in Android would be enough. 🤔

Funny to see how even almost 10 years after, employees here keep on calling their company "", regardless of whether they come from the , , or teams :)

Haha bitches against : "We allow 3rd party app stores, , automatic updates for sideloaded apps, and for free."

If you needed any more proof that the so-called is an front, their lobbyist just asked whether it wasn't worried that 3rd party app stores are dangerous to users and would put a control process in place (like Apple does). 😠

OK I'm back after the lunch break, and the / compliance workshop is heating up nicely:

They're talking Google Shopping and and competitors are accusing Google openly to be like a "dictator" and "blatantly non-compliant" with the . 👊

Jan Penfrat

Wow, 's engineering lead claims that they had 3,000 employees working for 2 years full-time to implement the 's article 5(2) prohibition of cross-sharing or combining people's personal data across services without .

tl;dr wrap-up from my 3rd day of compliance workshops with : while / seems to fare slightly better than in terms of compliance plans (from a digital rights perspective that is, I'm sure price comparison and hotel industries would disagree), there is still some way to go before the proposed changes can be called satisfactory. 🙊

And just to be clear: Google is still a terrible violator, the DMA will hardly change that.

@ilumium Was/will that claim be verified by 3,000 redundancies once the mission is fulfilled? Or do they provide some evidence that this was actually their cost? Or is it "don't regulate us" propaganda?