Mostly incorrect. The First Amendment limits the US government, not Ofcom or UK courts. UK law can regulate services with “links to the UK” even if the provider is abroad, and Ofcom’s enforcement does not itself abridge anyone’s US constitutional rights.
It's sovereignty that limits the UK courts from enforcing a fine against an organization without a physical, legal, or financial presence in the UK. They could ask US courts to enforce a UK judgment, but the First Amendment does bind US courts.
The first amendment is a natural right, not a civil right, but at any rate the matter of personal jurisdiction is what is at issue, which most definitely does regulate who can and cannot assert authority over a man (fictive or otherwise). Ofcom's attempt to enforce their law over corporations and people who do not in fact have "links to the UK" as defined under US law is the entirety of the issue. They are overstepping their jurisdiction and infringing upon the sovereignty of the United States.
The EU has some of the strongest data protection laws in the world, most notably the GDPR which enforces strict rules on how personal data is collected, stored, and used, with significant penalties for violatiions. Independent watchdogs in each country enforce these rules.
Freedom of expression is protected under Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While the EU allows limited restrictions (like hate speech, incitement to violence, etc), so do most democratic jurisdictions, including the US and UK.
It was overturned after 8 years even though everyone knew it was illegal from day 1. Even after its repeal, some countries have decided that they would keep the data accumulated so far and/or continue collecting it anyway.
- France recently tried to ban E2E to "stop drug trafficking" and "terrorism"
- The EU has been trying to pass Chat Control, a law which would force messaging apps, email providers and social media companies to scan all your personal data with a US made AI and save all your data somewhere that Europol can access. This data could then be searched at will by LEOs without a court order. This law has been on the table for the last 3/4 years and they keep bringing it up because they want to "save the children"
On the freedom of speech:
- Denmark recently started reintroducing blasphemy laws where it is now illegal to burn a religious book. Now that this Rubicon has been crossed, who knows what will happen next.
I don't mind when people compare the EU to the US when it comes to matters related to privacy or freedom of speech, but if we are going to do that, we need to get the facts straight and not repeat ad vitam aeternam things which are not true.
> Can we stop with this illusion that the EU is some kind of personal data protection heaven? This is not true and hasn't been for a while.
Compared to all other power blocks or countries in the world it is, though. That it's not perfect doesn't mean it does not deserve praise.
> It was overturned after 8 years
So the EU corrected their mistake.
> some countries have decided
The EU is not a federation (yet) so individual countries still abuse their sovereignty. Often, they are corrected or kept in check by the EU.
> France recently tried
tried
> The EU has been trying to pass Chat Control
has been trying
The above are examples of how the EU is actually successful rather than a failure in matters of data protection.
The key thing to understand is that the EU is not different in that it also contains people with stupid/misguided ideas and has to deal with the same challenges brought on by new technologies and geopolitical shifts. It is different in the systems and processes that prevent these from (longterm) implementation.
That is not to say that the EU is perfect and impervious from dumb shit being implemented. Vigilance for and protesting against well-intended but detrimental bullshit is still required.
No it did not. A court overturned the law yet as I explained not all countries in the EU complied with this court order to this day.
> The EU is not a federation (yet) so individual countries still abuse their sovereignty. Often, they are corrected or kept in check by the EU
If the countries were kept in check by the EU then France would not have tried to ban EtoE recently as it goes against the EU laws. If the EU as a whole was serious about data protection, the Chat Control law would have been dropped a long time ago.
> The above are examples of how the EU is actually successful rather than a failure in matters of data protection.
Tell me how successful is it when it portrays itself as a privacy minded place but it's parliament has tried to pass a law to strip literally all privacy from it's own citizens for the last 3 to 4 years? Those two things can't be right.
The EU is just the same as the US. It wants the data and is willing to sell out everyone in order to get it.
At least in the US the powers that be are not coy about it, they want the data because it is valuable. Here in the EU we prefer to sweep this stuff under the carpet and not admit that the goal is the same, just wrapped in a different package.
> If the countries were kept in check by the EU then France would not have tried to ban EtoE recently as it goes against the EU laws.
Nonsense. The correction happens after the infraction. The EU processes and systems cannot prevent (attempts of) infractions from happening altogether.
> If the EU as a whole was serious about data protection, the Chat Control law would have been dropped a long time ago.
It is not a law. It is a proposal. And again: people pushing for bullshit also exist in the EU. The question is to what extent the EU is resistant to that. The Chat Control law is a very typical case of well-intended but misguided "think of the children" combined with "we're old and understand fuck-all about technology".
> Tell me how successful is it when it portrays itself as a privacy minded place but it's parliament has tried to pass a law to strip literally all privacy from it's own citizens for the last 3 to 4 years? Those two things can't be right.
1. Is it an actual EU law yet? You pretend as if there is no pushback from anywhere in the EU.
2. Again, it is well-intended but misguided (Hanlon's razor applies). Politicians are confronted with digital CSAM-matters and correctly identify that that is some evil shit and that something needs to be done to combat it. You would do the same. The difference is mainly that these politicians don't properly understand what introducing backdoors to E2E encryption actually entails. Only a subset of those politicians does understand but think that combating CSAM is more important than privacy and an even smaller subset actually wants to abuse the system for data collection.
So no, the EU is not 'just the same as the US and willing to sell out everyone in order to get it'.
As the other comment points out that is an illusion. That is partially what I meant with idealists and fanatics. They don't check the relevant info.
Right now the EU is working to circumvent encryption, it tried to implement chat control and is certainly not done here either. The hate speech excemptions are generalist, so it can be applied to anything. Aside from many ordoliberal nations, that don't have a good record here, it overall is just not attractive to establish hosting.
If you need to circumvent encryption, fine. But don't expect to ever become a digital haven. And you shouldn't, because you aren't attractive. Be attractive, it is that easy.
The US at least has the culture for it. It is on the backfoot to a degree but still ahead of the EU. Perhaps people would even vote for the EU and give it legitimacy.
> BBC Weather’s homepage is a content-rich page. Users have a reason to be looking at it and to be looking for an extended period of time.
Most of that rich content is obstructed by them bloody cookie warnings, on first visit.
That’s not a very convincing simulation of “I’ve been looking at this page for the last 5 mins!”
I often leave cookie popovers unclicked. Sometimes they take an annoying amount of work to decline cookies, and they can be used to cover video ads anyway.
I get one here in the UK, in incognito. It's actually one of the nicest cookie banners you'll ever see—just 75px tall at the top of the page, and it doesn't float so it disappears when you scroll. I recommend at least trying to see it, to appreciate its superiority over all the other cookie banners.
All alternative products I have used so far have worse UI.
Slack is always laggy and does not even handle markdown well. Recently moved around buttons for huddles and people keep searching for where that button is. Also annoying, that pictures can only be attached to the end of a message, forcing me to reference with something like [1][2] and so on.
MS Teams: haha just joking. Of course it cannot even be considered close to an alternative!
Discord: Was good some time ago, becomes ever more bloated and heavy now.
Element: When I tried it some time ago, it was very unclear how threads actually work and they did not seem to have any visual separation from other messages, that simply came later in a channel. Basically messages know they belong to a thread, but visually you almost cannot see it. Not sure, if that is still the case.
Zulip is snappy and works well with markdown. I find it looks much cleaner than Slack and others.
Not only does it look OK to me, but the UX is second to none. I don't like the modern design trends with white space everywhere, I want to communicate and that means dense information.
I think the design issue is more of an HN meme these days, than an actual problem.
Most of the time I also enjoy pretty dense UIs, as long as I don’t have a significant risk of misclicking on things that are too small.
That said, I rather liked what Thunderbird and JetBrains did - let the user choose not only the fonts and stuff like that, but also the UI density that they want.
That is in fact one of the new features in this 9.0 release! There's a new less-dense default, and the previous dense layout remains an option (which for myself I immediately turned on).
We're also planning to give a wider array of options in an upcoming release, including independently setting the line-height and the font size. It's a lot of work to get even two options to both have a reasonable layout throughout the UI, though (among other things, it involved changing a lot of hardcoded values in px to be in relative units), which is why only the two-way switch made it into this week's release.
