What's bizarre about it? There's lots of legislation that requires companies to report on various data or to provide access to auditors. It's legally valid.
I think there's a compelling case to be made for requiring large social media platforms to provide data access to researchers, considering the platform's incredible ability to influence elections and society at-large.
Auditors are hired by the company being audited, have a very narrow and fixed mission justified by previous financial blowups that caused a lot of concrete damage to specific people, and there are strict standards defining what they are looking for and how. Audits don't tend to suck up personal data of customers.
"Researchers" here means self-selecting academics going on arbitrary fishing expeditions with full access to everyone's data. It's not narrowly defined, not justified by prior unambiguous harm to anyone, and given the maxed out ideological bias in academia is clearly just setting up universities to be an ideological police force on the general public.
It's not clear what "full access to everyone's data" actually means, isn't it limited to things that are already publicly available? So for example, I don't think researchers would get access to someone's Likes because that feature is now considered private, but they could access things like Posts and Retweets. My expectation is that researchers would be allowed to run queries against publicly available data as part of their research, but they wouldn't be allowed to do a huge download with a copy of everything posted during the last 5 years.
Facebook / Meta is compliant with these laws, and the way that they handle researcher access is by providing carefully controlled remote environments with sandboxed access to user data, which forms the basis for my understanding of how researchers are typically provided access to social media data.
Because those researchers become a potential data leak. We all know that deanonymized data isn't actually anonymous. Do you, as the user, really want people poking around your private data "for research purposes"? Where there are basically no consequences if they mess up and leak your data?
I chose to give my data to the company. I didn't choose to give it to some unrelated third party.
I guess one point of confusion is exactly what data is shared, because I understood it to be general access to things that are already publicly available.
Furthermore, X offers paid access to the same data through their enterprise API program, so you're already giving access to unrelated third parties. Is there a significant distinction between the data that researchers could access and what's available through enterprise API?
There is a big difference between auditors and "researchers". Researchers are just academics whose incentives are to publish things and makes a name for themselves - possibly the worst group to give data access to.
Maybe it’s stupid in your perspective. nevertheless; nations have the right to put laws in place and enterprises willing to provide goods and services ought to follow those rules.
And this is why the EU is stagnant and unable to innovate. These nations can do whatever they want but let's be honest about what's going on here. The law is stupid because it's forcing US tech companies to subsidize research boondoggles. They're providing bullshit jobs to useless academics who are incapable of doing any real work, and the final output will be some long reports that no one ever reads.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the Cambridge Analytica scandal started off with data that was supposed to be used for research projects at the University of Cambridge being exfiltrated for commercial political use [0].
That said, this is most likely a tit-for-tat by the EU against the Trump administration, because we live in a world where all countries (even the US) have now weaponized regulations for negotiating leverage.
Our red line in both the Biden admin as well as the current admin was the DSA. The EU's red line is not being included in any negotiation over the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. The US fights against the DSA by arguing about infringement on free speech. The EU then tries to fight back over market competition. And it goes on and on and on.
This is why a lot of businesses get antsy about trade wars.
They could implement a similar system to what Facebook currently provides when doing research with platform data. I think they only allow access to carefully controlled data through a remote sandboxed environment.
I think Twitter is already providing access to this data through paid APIs too, so this is effectively subsidizing researcher access.
Probably, but as I mentioned before, the EU has been using the DSA as a negotiating tool against the US - just like we are using Free Speech absolutism and "censorship" as a tool against the EU in negotiations.
Unlike other major tech companies like Meta or Alphabet that fall under the DSA, X doesn't have a similar presence in the EU to give it a firewall. Alphabet has Poland on it's side [0], Meta has Ireland on it's side [1], Amazon has Luxembourg on it's side [2], and Microsoft has Czechia on it's side [7][8][9], and because of Musk's ties to the GOP, it becomes a useful political lever while not directly hurting individual EU states. If X somehow complies, some other issue will crop up against (eg.) Tesla despite the Gigafactory because Brandenburg is a lost cause if you aren't affilated with the AfD or BSW. It's the same reason why X doesn't push back when India passes a diktat because Indian law holds corporate leaders criminally liable and X has a significant India presence [10]
It's the same way how if you want to hold Germany by the balls you pressure Volkswagen [3] and if you want to pressure France [4] you target LVMH's cognac, scotch, and wine business [5].
This is a major reason why companies try to build GCCs abroad as well - being in the same room gives some leverage when negotiating regulations. Hence why Czechia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Greece pushed back against French attempts at cloud sovereignty [6] because OVHCloud only has a presence in France and Poland, but Amazon and Microsoft have large capital presences in the other 4.
alephnerd, I have to flat out disagree with your grievances [0][1][2][3][4][5]. The more I read, the worse it gets. The fact that some people in a foreign country feel personally persecuted by the DSA and are willing to bully us around is not a good argument against it [1]. In fact, I think the American attitude of having "red lines" about this is quite frankly irrelevant to the bigger picture [2]. I think there are plenty of ego-syntonic justifications for why it's okay to take a different stance than us on our policies, but while there are plenty of sources, I don't think there is a lot of reasoned analysis [3]. I'm sure much of it is shaped by personal circumstances. But I admit, sweeping historical references can be interesting too [4]. As a Swede, I can tell you that not a single person I know cares about random companies in Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France getting pressured [5]. I'm not very familiar with it, but I'm sure Finland already regrets their previous stance on cloud-infra. Perceptions have fundamentally changed about the United States as an ally. As for GCAP and FCAS, they have different requirements and serve different purposes. What's your take on the next Gripen?
If you want to pressure Volkswagen, go ahead. Nobody cares. The fundamental flaw in your position is your implicit assumption about what we value or what motivates us. We're not Americans. I don't think America's "non-tariff barriers" are a valid concern. They are disingenuous rhetoric for domestic consumption. Heads would roll if there was ever an agreement with the US to lower our standards and open up local industries to competition from lower quality foreign importers due to geopolitical pressure. Pressure is not going to undo the DSA or the GDPR because they have broad support. As others have said, it is decades overdue. If Elon Musk is mad about having to follow the law, I'm sure he can find sympathy elsewhere. His sour grapes are not principled, they are about protecting his ego and finding others who do so for him.
Sorry for the bluntness, but I feel it is very much warranted.
Of course no one cares about random companies in Czechia or France getting pressured; it's not meant to sway public opinion in Sweden, otherwise it would have been a waste of influence (money). I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction.
For example, he might personally support DSA/GDPR, but he says that the US generally views these as “non-tariff barriers” to US service companies[0] and doesn’t bother evaluating the policies themselves. essentially saying for the purposes of predicting how the US will react, it's sufficient to analyze how the US views them and the actual policy details lose relevance in that context. He also shared a detail[0] about how the US placed their lobbyists as commissioners on GDPR, which is an interesting operational detail that argues against the broad support argument you’re making. Another question is whether there would still be broad support for some policy after it has been enacted and its adverse effects have been felt.
> For example, he might personally support DSA/GDPR, but he says that the US generally views these as “non-tariff barriers” to US service companies[0] and doesn’t bother evaluating the policies themselves. essentially saying for the purposes of predicting how the US will react, it's sufficient to analyze how the US views them and the actual policy details lose relevance in that context. He also shared a detail[0] about how the US placed their lobbyists as commissioners on GDPR, which is an interesting operational detail that argues against the broad support argument you’re making. Another question is whether there would still be broad support for some policy after it has been enacted and its adverse effects have been felt.
This.
> I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction.
This (but does make me sound kind of pretentious). I started my career in Tech Policy (and considered a career in academia for a hot second) before pivoting to being a technical IC and climbing the ladder. I am responding as I would when I was a TF.
--------
I am a supporter of multilateralism and do think the EU was a net benefit, but the EU's approach to unanimity should have been reformed during the 2004-07 expansion, and the Eurozone should have been decoupled from the political goals of the EU then unified. I'd probably say I lean closer to reformist academics like Draghi and Garicano.
> Sorry for the bluntness, but I feel it is very much warranted
No worries. I think you misunderstood my post.
I used to work in the tech policy space, and I'm just bluntly explaining how we in the policymaking space view these discussions - especially with regards to negotiating with the EU.
> As a Swede, I can tell you that not a single person I know cares about random companies in Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France getting pressured
Well duh. You aren't the target for such an influence op. Leadership in (eg.) Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France are.
Much of the EU runs on unanimity, so all you need to do is pressure a single country and you have a veto.
This is what China has been doing with Sweden to a certain extent via Geely-owned Volvo Car Group and Polestar [0] and what we in the US have been doing with Ericcson [1][2][3]. Even the EU tries to use similar levers against the US [6].
To be brutally honest, this is how the game is played.
Most nations have now adopted the "elite-centric approach" to transnational negotiations [4], which makes it difficult for the EU, because the line between national soverignity and the EU with regards to foreign and economic affairs is not well defined. If you are not a veto player [5] your opinion does not matter.
Once you understand Political Science basics, a lot of stuff starts making sense. And I went to a college where heads of states would visit on a biweekly basis, and a large subset of European (and other regions) leaders attended or recruit from.
> What's your take on the next Gripen?
DoA if it depends on a GE power plant - the Volvo engine is a licensed version of the GE F404, so the US has final say on any Saab Gripen exports.
The DSA is decades overdue. It's absurd that there hasn't been one. There's also a dozen non-EU countries that have one, and that number has been growing rapidly.
To call it a "negotiation tool" is like calling literally any import tax or tariff - of which hundreds of thousands existed and were entirely accepted as squarely in the Overton Window long before Trump took office - purely a "negotiation tool". Just because it's new doesn't make it one any more so than such import taxes which have been around for ages.
> There's also a dozen non-EU countries that have one, and that number has been growing rapidly
Not really. Most of them offer significant carve-outs for American BigTech companies, or their implementation has been stayed, or significant capex subsidizes are provided to help reduce their impact for American BigTechs considering FDI in those countries.
It has been a DNC supported policy [0] as well to put pressure on countries that are even considering a digital services act. Heck the Biden admin began the process of making a legal example out of Canada [1] as a warning shot to other countries considering such options.
> To call it a "negotiation tool" is like calling literally any import tax or tariff ... purely a "negotiation tool".
That is what import taxes and tariffs are when not clubbed with subsidizes and formal sector specific industrial policy, because the act of giving MFN status to certain nations is itself a negotiating tactic. Canada's backing down on a digital service tax is a good example of that [2]
The whole point of (eg.) giving the UK preferential market access to the US over the EU, and giving Japan and South Korea preferential market access to the US over China is because it is a lever we can use when negotiating. Heck, France and Germany have both constantly tried leveraging tariffs and import taxes as a negotiating tactic against the US under the Biden admin [3][4] (and of course earlier).
As I mentioned above, this has been a slow-rolling negotiation between the US and EU since 2019. We in the US have bipartisan support to oppose the DSA and DSA-equivalents abroad. It was prominent stance in the Biden administration [0], and even Harris would have put a similar degree of pressure on the EU.
We have no obligation to give Europeans a red carpet, and you guys are not in a position to push back anyhow. The Chinese [5] and Russians have given similar ultimatums to the EU as well. What are you going to do? Sign an FTA with India and then face the same problem in 10 years with them?
You guys have fallen into the same trap that the Mughal and Qing Empires fell into in the 18th-19th century. Anyhow, we've unofficially signalled we are leaving the responsibility of Europe's defenses to Europe by 2027 [6] - meaning member states have no choice but to end up buying American gear or completely vacillate to Russia on Ukraine.
You're still not explaining how the DSA is supposedly a negotiating tactic from the EU any more than you could say that about GDPR. It's a new legal framewo tackling a relatively new set of problems. If any of them get watered down because of deals with the US, then you could make that sort of claim.
> Anyhow, we've unofficially signalled we are leaving the responsibility of Europe's defenses to Europe by 2027 [6] - meaning member states have no choice but to end up buying American gear or completely vacillate to Russia on Ukraine.
Or just buying from the existing European providers? Most American gear has a (sometimes better, cf. all the stuff even the US buys from European companies) European based equivalent. The only major exception is the F-35, but at least one 6th gen European jet is in the works, and unless fighting with the US, an 5th gen stealth fighter isn't really that needed. European manufacturers need to increase output, and they have been working on it and have done so quite a lot already.
> Or just buying from the existing European providers? Most American gear has a (sometimes better, cf. all the stuff even the US buys from European companies) European based equivalent.
That might happen over the long term (I still have doubts given that whenever a joint EU project is formed between two countries with vendors, they inevitabely end up collapsing due to domestic political considerations such as the European MBT and FCAS - no leader wants to be the leader who shut down a factory with 1200 high paying unionized jobs for the greater good), but cannot happen in the 1 year timeframe given.
The reality is, if we the US make a deal with Russia over the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next 12 months, the EU will have no choice but to accept it if you do not put boots on the ground and if you do not expropriate Russian government assets in the EU. But your leadership class has rejected [2] both [3].
> European manufacturers need to increase output, and they have been working on it and have done so quite a lot already.
Not enough for the 1 year time frame needed
> how the DSA is supposedly a negotiating tactic from the EU any more than you could say that about GDPR
We view the DSA as a non-tariff barrier to American services companies. This is both a Trump admin view [0] as well as a Biden-era admin view [1].
We held similarly negative views about the GDPR until Ireland, Czechia, Poland, and Luxembourg accommodated us by hiring our lobbyists as their commissioners.
And this is why every single pan-EU project fails - every major country like the US (previously listed) and China [4][5] cultivated economic and political ties with members that act as vetos in decisions that have a unanimity requirements.
This is why I gave the comparison to the Qing and Mughal Empire - the English, French, and other European nations broke both empires by leveraging one-sided economic deals with subnational units (eg. the Bengal Subah in the Mughal Empire and the unequal treaties in the Qing Empire), which slowly gnawed away at unity.
We in the US, China, Russia, India, and others are starting to do the same to you - not out of explicit strategy, but due to the return of multipolarity and most European state's failure to recover from the Eurozone crisis.
> whenever a joint EU project is formed between two countries with vendors, they inevitabely end up collapsing due to domestic political considerations such as the European MBT and FCAS - no leader wants to be the leader who shut down a factory with 1200 high paying unionized jobs for the greater good
Eurofighter Typhoon and before that the Panavia Tornado. That lineage's next up is the GCAP 6th gen plane.
Horizon/Orizonte and after that the FREMM (which is so good even the US are buying it). In general Italian/French naval cooperation is very strong.
The whole of MBDA and hell even Airbus were created for inter-country cooperation.
There are plenty of successful examples on which to build on, as well as failures from which to learn. But again, today very few military things cannot be sourced from a European supplier. BAE, Leonardo, Dassault, Thales, Rheinmetall, KNDS, Saab, Fincantieri, Naval Group, Indra, Airbus, MBDA etc. are world leaders in their respective fields.
> The reality is, if we the US make a deal with Russia over the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next 12 months, the EU will have no choice but to accept it if you do not put boots on the ground and if you do not expropriate Russian government assets in the EU
No? US can sign whatever bootlicking deal it wants with Russia, but it's up to Ukraine what happens actually. The EU will continue backing Ukraine. Boots on the ground are highly unlikely, but exploration of Russian assets is quite probable (opposition isn't massive, and as time goes on, will only whither).
> We view the DSA as a non-tariff barrier to American services companies. This is both a Trump admin view [0] as well as a Biden-era admin view [1].
Cool, nobody cares. The US has put in sufficient actual tariffs that it cannot scream "unfair". EU leaders will try to negotiate whatever they can to lower short term economic damage, but the long term damage is done. The US is not a reliable trade or anything partner, and there's no going back on that.
Regarding your Mughal and Qing comparisons... Damn, where do I even start? EU isn't a country, so the comparison is off from the start.
How? Ukraine uses American intel for targeting, a significant amount of American munitions either bought directly from the US or indirectly by member states, and more critically, we in the US can force Ukraine to the table by preventing access to these systems.
> but exploration of Russian assets is quite probable (opposition isn't massive...
How? Belgium has vetoed expropriating Russian assets [0] because the ECB rejected providing a backstop. And Hungary has vetoed the utilization of Eurobonds [1]
If EU member states cannot expropriate Russian assets nor provide boots on the ground in Ukraine nor provide munitions and intel to replace American offerings in the next 1 year, what else is there that the EU can do?
On top of that, we've given the 2027 deadline for NATO, so now what should the EU prioritize?
> That lineage's next up is the GCAP 6th gen plane
Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian. And that's my point. No EU joint defense project succeeds because inevitably individual states in the EU protect their champions
> The US is not a reliable trade or anything partner, and there's no going back on that.
Yep. And who else is there? The Chinese gave the exact same ultimatum as the US to European leadership, and so are the Indians as part of the FTA negotiation.
And we can always put the squeeze on Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and LVMH and make both Germany and France squeal [2] and blunt any regulations coming out of the EU as a result - just like the China [3] and India [4].
> are world leaders in their respective fields
They absolutely are in R&D and IP, but their production will not scale out until 2029-35, at which point it would be too late.
They have been cut off already. But if you think that Ukraine was flying blind until now if not for US targeting, I don't know what to tell you.
> Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian
No, Leonardo is Italian with significant presence in the UK. But in any case the British component is provided by BAE Systems (which also heavily participate in F-35). And yes, it's not an EU project, it's a project in which European countries and companies are taking part. Does that change anything?
> Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian. And that's my point
> No EU joint defense project succeeds because inevitably individual states in the EU protect their champions
Do I need to list the big successes again? This is categorically not true.
> How? Belgium has vetoed expropriating Russian assets [0] because the ECB rejected providing a backstop. And Hungary has vetoed the utilization of Eurobonds [1]
Belgium can be convinced potentially, and with any luck Orban would be heading to prison next year, so Hungary wouldn't be vetoing Eurobonds.
> The Chinese gave the exact same ultimatum as the US to European leadership, and so are the Indians as part of the FTA negotiation.
What ultimatum? To drop DSA? Source?
> They absolutely are in R&D and IP, but their production will not scale out until 2029-35, at which point it would be too late.
Production of what? This is so industry and company specific that I struggle taking you seriously just throwing random years like that for everything. And in any case one the major weapon of the war is drones, for which manufacturing is mostly local in Ukraine. There are a million other things that go into a war machine, but pretending that the second US cuts supplies Ukraine has to surrender is disingenuous.
They cannot. The Belgian government has categorically rejected expropriation 3 days ago because the ECB rejected providing any funding, and Euroclear has announced it will fight the EU in Belgian court if any steps are taken to do so [2] with Belgian govenenent backing [4], so those funds would anyhow be frozen for years.
You aren't even reading any of my citations.
> Orban would be heading to prison next year, so Hungary wouldn't be vetoing Eurobonds
We still have Slovakia [3].
> What ultimatum? To drop DSA? Source
Over other regulations like CBAM [0]. The same way the US is playing hard ball over the DSA, China+India are playing hard ball over CBAM.
> Leonardo is Italian with significant presence in the UK
Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1], but being a single overarching conglomerate makes it significantly easier to manage the GCAP project, versus FCAS which became a Renault-Airbus spat which turned into a France-Germany spat.
> but pretending that the second US cuts supplies Ukraine has to surrender is disingenuous.
EU leadership has admitted this fact [5] and even best case projections [6] show it is a Herculean task in the next 1 year.
> Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1], but being a single overarching conglomerate makes it significantly easier to manage the GCAP project, versus FCAS which became a Renault-Airbus spat which turned into a France-Germany spat.
I have a hard time with you, you sound extremely confident in your opinions, provide sources and everything, and then make massive errors like saying no European common military projects work (after having been given a list of the big hits), confuse what Leonardo is and who is working on GCAP, and now you're confusing Renault (a car manufacturer that used to make planes a century ago, and that has recently said they'll look into making drones from underused factories) and Dassault Aviation.
To top it off, you cite sources that don't support your claims.
> Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1],
And cite a source that merely says "Requirement to rate each part number being exported from the UK in accordance with the UK Military Classification List;
" (emphasis mine).
> Over other regulations like CBAM [0]. The same way the US is playing hard ball over the DSA, China+India are playing hard ball over CBAM.
"Playing hardball" is not ultimatum. And your source doesn't even support your "hard ball" claim, it says India tried pushing back which was refused by the EU.
It's not "any company", it's exceptionally large platforms who can give insight into large societal questions and have enough influence to sway people's opinions. The data is technically public already, researchers could scrape it, but investigations has to be able to be done to ensure the platforms aren't used to intentionally steer people's opinion in a specific direction, since they're unable to self regulate that it seems.
> Can I get access to my politicians' emails "for research purposes"?
In the US that's called an FOIA. It could include their personal devices if they use them for work communication. It's not limited to research purposes.
They changed the blue check from an exclusive club of the rich and popular, to just Ive got a paying account. How is that misleading? Why does the EU have a say about design choices?
The blue check symbolised (symbolises) being verified, i.e. this account belongs to who it says it does. But it doesn't carry out any/sufficient checks to actually verify that.
They have the legal right, similar to the federal government in the USA. You can disagree with their judgement, but they clearly have the right to enforce it.
referring to legality is self referential, since they enact the laws, everything they do can be legal. US could sentence commissioners to prison by enacting certain laws or declare war, we wouldn't certainly say 'they have a right to do that' in that situation.
USanians have been raised to believe that corporations are somehow above the law but that’s not true. Play stupid games, earn stupid fines a.k.a fuck with people and people will fuck back.
I left the EU years ago. Today, I feel way happier and freer. Once you're out, you realize how strongly they were influencing your ability to be free via rules, taxes, news, low salaries, and business start-up costs. Try it yourself if you get the chance.
> "Europe is taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations," Carr said.
And America is taxing Americans via tariffs to subsidize a corrupt executive branch lining its own pockets. At least Europe is looking out for a whole continent. Not just a handful of grifters.
Taxes which are used wisely for the people’s benefit is not a wasteful thing. That was the point original commentator made.
Your reasoning is that taxation is always bad and the more you pay the worst, a very American view which I can understand given how badly US government spends money in this regard.
It's just a dog whistle. People hate tax, so calling things that are not tax "tax" triggers anger in people without deep critical thinking skills. Or people with skills but not enough energy or time to use them on this particular issue.
Actually the difference isn't that big when you consider that "taxes" (I'm using this to describe all (semi-)mandatory state money extraction from revenues, whether they're called tax, insurance, cotisation, etc) in European countries cover the majority of healthcare and retirement costs that Americans pay out of pocket. But still have to pay. So if the US had the same "tax" model as European countries do, the rate wouldn't be that off (VAT is usually higher than American sales taxes, income tax often has higher brackets, but Americans spend a lot more on healthcare and retirement).
> "Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU," said European Commission Vice President Henna Virkkunen.
I agree. Good EU!
> Pre-empting the announcement on Thursday night, United States Vice President JD Vance that "the EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage."
Sorry, but your garbage has influence outside the US. Keep it to yourself or clean up.
Deception and fraud aren't even protected by the 1st Amendment, and the blue checkmark scheme being pay-to-win is definitely leaning that way, if not just straight up there. Seems the EU thought is just is.
And if you care so much about free speech, maybe you should be more open about those ads of yours?
At this point, X is a propaganda tool for the radical right. I won't miss X in Europe if you decide to remove access to EU. Please, do it.
Mind you, 120M USD is peanuts for Musk. If it were me, I'd just fine X 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 USD just because I want to retaliate against Trump's silliness. If you wanna play hardball, expect it back. But, but... freedom of bullshit. You can keep that, we can perfectly use freedom of speech on solid platforms instead.
\1 In real actual history, the US didn't developed a working nuclear weapon based on UK provided designs until after the German surrender.
So in real history there was no chance to "glass" an active EU war zone during WWII.
\2 In the GP's fantasy history in which the US left Europe alone to deal with the Nazi's on their own, the MAUD folk would have never passed on their research to the US and the US would have wallowed in their belief that nuclear weapons were impractical and continued on messing about with atomic power from big piles.
The US saw the MAUD report before entering the war. American scientists received copies as early as October (chemist James Conant received it october 3). But the US didnt commit to entering the war until after Pearl Harbor, December 8.
You are mixing the order of events.
Second you are overstating its importance. The primary contribution of the report is scientific feasibility.
Every part of the engineering and design of the bombs was done in secret in the US without any other country collaboration. They didnt need "UK provided designs" because there was no such thing.
We... do? Of course, if you'd like to name whatever wars we're a) involved with and b) not fighting ourselves, then that would be splendid.
Anyway, how is that relevant to enforcing the DSA on X?
> We civilized them. And we may have to civilize them again.
What does this even mean? What do you mean by "civilize"? Also this sounds very much like how colonialism and imperialism were justified back in the 19th and 20th centuries.
But again, what does this have to do with X and DSA?
> But until they turn to yet another genocide maybe we should just let the Europeans have at each other.
Russia is currently conducting a genocide over in Ukraine, for example by kidnapping children and bringing them over to Russia and beyond, for example to North Korea.
This is a war crime and also genocidal. So by your admission you ought to be helping.
But again, what does this have to do with X and DSA?
> We can pay them the $150m to let them take care of Ukraine themselves. It was bad enough we had to drag them by the nose to the water. Maybe enough is enough.
We are taking care of Ukraine. Most of the aid is coming from various EU states, and the organisation itself.
Of course, the United States is the largest singular donator and also has donated some very important capabilities to Ukraine, for which people should be and are thankful for, but the claim that Europe isn't doing anything for Ukraine is just false. Could we do more? Absolutely. Should we? Yes. But that doesn't mean that nothing is happening.
But I must ask again, what does this have to do with X or the DSA?
> What does this even mean? What do you mean by "civilize"?
Teach them not to gas millions of people, that kind of thing. Nothing outrageous or anything.
> Russia is currently conducting a genocide over in Ukraine, for example by kidnapping children and bringing them over to Russia and beyond, for example to North Korea.
Ukrainian casualties are nothing like what Germany was inflicting on people. The latter rises to the standard. The former perhaps not.
To be honest, at first I thought we had to help a European country being invaded by Russia, but over time I've realized that Europeans mostly don't want us there. This is an internal affair for them. Some Europeans killing other Europeans. If it gets to the millions of civilians dead, then yeah they've fallen back into their atavistic ways and we have to go clean up again. But otherwise you kind of have to let Europeans be Europeans.
Blowing up their pipeline to get them to help themselves was unnecessary. If they don't want to help, they don't have to. It's up to them. We've got stuff to deal with. And they don't appreciate it anyway. They primarily treat the US as some kind of pinata to pop out money and weapons any time they decide to go kill each other.
> Ukrainian casualties are nothing like what Germany was inflicting on people. The latter rises to the standard. The former perhaps not.
The UN convention on prevention of genocide doesn't have any victim threshold for what counts as genocide.
> To be honest, at first I thought we had to help a European country being invaded by Russia, but over time I've realized that Europeans mostly don't want us there
Anyone using "Europeans" to broadly paint a whole continent with a single brush as expressing a singular opinion is at best extremely misinformed, at worst...
Anyways, Ukrainians very much want American support. And have been providing invaluable information on exactly how the Russians work and think in exchange for it.
In most EU member states, the majority of people, wanted US and EU side by side helping Ukraine. After all, most of those countries sent soldiers to help US kill a bunch of Iraqis, wouldn't it be nice to do it for a good cause for a change? Of course, the ~20-30-40% of Russophiles in multiple Central and Eastern European countries (like Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, etc) didn't want that, they wanted their "brothers" to win. But they're mostly irrelevant, and mostly dying off.
That's also why it's stupid to paint any war as just "it's just Europeans killing Europeans or just Africans killing Africans". How does that change anything about the war, or its casualties? Was Srebrenica not a genocide that merited being stopped just because both were Balkan peoples? Does the war in Sudan deserve no attention because it's just Africans?
But Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
> Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
The quietly released (no fanfare) 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States of America that dropped last night explicitly steers the US away from traditional European allies and embraces Russia.
> But Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
Exactly. Europeans believe we are not partners any more and that we never will be. There’s really no reason for us to send anything to Ukraine. When we were partners it made sense but as you point out, Europeans don’t believe that’s the case. So I think it’s time to move on and stop trying to force an alliance that doesn’t want to be together.
We should disband NATO and adjust to the new world order where Europe and the US are not allies, just participants in a multipolar world. If Europeans want to fight Europeans, we should let them work it out.
It’s not our business and they don’t want us in it. The allies we pick should be ones who want to be allied with us. America lost four hundred thousand men for your last internal conflict. We requested and got a token few thousand men over all the times we needed you. The debt will remain unpaid. And that’s okay.
You don’t want us and we don’t want you. It’s time to get a divorce.
Don't do business in Europe if you don't like it. It's not hard.
And if you must use these kind of loaded terms, insisting you MUST be allowed to do business on YOUR TERMS and your terms alone is pretty much how colonisation started.
Why can a company be fined for not allowing "researchers" access to data? That seems bizarre to me.
What's bizarre about it? There's lots of legislation that requires companies to report on various data or to provide access to auditors. It's legally valid.
I think there's a compelling case to be made for requiring large social media platforms to provide data access to researchers, considering the platform's incredible ability to influence elections and society at-large.
Auditors != researchers.
Auditors are hired by the company being audited, have a very narrow and fixed mission justified by previous financial blowups that caused a lot of concrete damage to specific people, and there are strict standards defining what they are looking for and how. Audits don't tend to suck up personal data of customers.
"Researchers" here means self-selecting academics going on arbitrary fishing expeditions with full access to everyone's data. It's not narrowly defined, not justified by prior unambiguous harm to anyone, and given the maxed out ideological bias in academia is clearly just setting up universities to be an ideological police force on the general public.
> Auditors are hired by the company being audited
Not necessarily; regulatory bodies, particularly tax authorities, can and do impose auditors upon companies.
It's not clear what "full access to everyone's data" actually means, isn't it limited to things that are already publicly available? So for example, I don't think researchers would get access to someone's Likes because that feature is now considered private, but they could access things like Posts and Retweets. My expectation is that researchers would be allowed to run queries against publicly available data as part of their research, but they wouldn't be allowed to do a huge download with a copy of everything posted during the last 5 years.
Facebook / Meta is compliant with these laws, and the way that they handle researcher access is by providing carefully controlled remote environments with sandboxed access to user data, which forms the basis for my understanding of how researchers are typically provided access to social media data.
Because those researchers become a potential data leak. We all know that deanonymized data isn't actually anonymous. Do you, as the user, really want people poking around your private data "for research purposes"? Where there are basically no consequences if they mess up and leak your data?
I chose to give my data to the company. I didn't choose to give it to some unrelated third party.
I guess one point of confusion is exactly what data is shared, because I understood it to be general access to things that are already publicly available.
Furthermore, X offers paid access to the same data through their enterprise API program, so you're already giving access to unrelated third parties. Is there a significant distinction between the data that researchers could access and what's available through enterprise API?
There is a big difference between auditors and "researchers". Researchers are just academics whose incentives are to publish things and makes a name for themselves - possibly the worst group to give data access to.
It's stupid to force companies to accommodate researchers. If researchers want data then they can negotiate a paid license for it.
Not sure how much "It's stupid" adds to the conversation. GP made an argument.
Maybe it’s stupid in your perspective. nevertheless; nations have the right to put laws in place and enterprises willing to provide goods and services ought to follow those rules.
And this is why the EU is stagnant and unable to innovate. These nations can do whatever they want but let's be honest about what's going on here. The law is stupid because it's forcing US tech companies to subsidize research boondoggles. They're providing bullshit jobs to useless academics who are incapable of doing any real work, and the final output will be some long reports that no one ever reads.
why? what seems bizarre to me is that platforms of such whitespread use and public interest can be bought and ruined by some random person
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the Cambridge Analytica scandal started off with data that was supposed to be used for research projects at the University of Cambridge being exfiltrated for commercial political use [0].
That said, this is most likely a tit-for-tat by the EU against the Trump administration, because we live in a world where all countries (even the US) have now weaponized regulations for negotiating leverage.
Our red line in both the Biden admin as well as the current admin was the DSA. The EU's red line is not being included in any negotiation over the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. The US fights against the DSA by arguing about infringement on free speech. The EU then tries to fight back over market competition. And it goes on and on and on.
This is why a lot of businesses get antsy about trade wars.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
They could implement a similar system to what Facebook currently provides when doing research with platform data. I think they only allow access to carefully controlled data through a remote sandboxed environment.
I think Twitter is already providing access to this data through paid APIs too, so this is effectively subsidizing researcher access.
Probably, but as I mentioned before, the EU has been using the DSA as a negotiating tool against the US - just like we are using Free Speech absolutism and "censorship" as a tool against the EU in negotiations.
Unlike other major tech companies like Meta or Alphabet that fall under the DSA, X doesn't have a similar presence in the EU to give it a firewall. Alphabet has Poland on it's side [0], Meta has Ireland on it's side [1], Amazon has Luxembourg on it's side [2], and Microsoft has Czechia on it's side [7][8][9], and because of Musk's ties to the GOP, it becomes a useful political lever while not directly hurting individual EU states. If X somehow complies, some other issue will crop up against (eg.) Tesla despite the Gigafactory because Brandenburg is a lost cause if you aren't affilated with the AfD or BSW. It's the same reason why X doesn't push back when India passes a diktat because Indian law holds corporate leaders criminally liable and X has a significant India presence [10]
It's the same way how if you want to hold Germany by the balls you pressure Volkswagen [3] and if you want to pressure France [4] you target LVMH's cognac, scotch, and wine business [5].
This is a major reason why companies try to build GCCs abroad as well - being in the same room gives some leverage when negotiating regulations. Hence why Czechia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Greece pushed back against French attempts at cloud sovereignty [6] because OVHCloud only has a presence in France and Poland, but Amazon and Microsoft have large capital presences in the other 4.
[0] - https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/google-invests-billions...
[1] - https://www.euractiv.com/news/irish-privacy-regulator-picks-...
[2] - https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/policy/amazon-leaders-meet-l...
[3] - https://www.ft.com/content/6ec91d4a-2f37-4a01-9132-6c7ae5b06...
[4] - https://videos.senat.fr/video.5409997_682ddabf64695.aides-au...
[5] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-03/eu-fight-...
[6] - https://www.euractiv.com/news/eu-digital-ministers-push-agai...
[7] - https://nukib.gov.cz/en/infoservis-en/news/2276-nukib-and-mi...
[8] - https://news.microsoft.com/europe/2017/03/31/satya-nadella-v...
[9] - https://mpo.gov.cz/en/guidepost/for-the-media/press-releases...
[10] - https://www.glassdoor.com/Location/X-Bengaluru-Location-EI_I...
alephnerd, I have to flat out disagree with your grievances [0][1][2][3][4][5]. The more I read, the worse it gets. The fact that some people in a foreign country feel personally persecuted by the DSA and are willing to bully us around is not a good argument against it [1]. In fact, I think the American attitude of having "red lines" about this is quite frankly irrelevant to the bigger picture [2]. I think there are plenty of ego-syntonic justifications for why it's okay to take a different stance than us on our policies, but while there are plenty of sources, I don't think there is a lot of reasoned analysis [3]. I'm sure much of it is shaped by personal circumstances. But I admit, sweeping historical references can be interesting too [4]. As a Swede, I can tell you that not a single person I know cares about random companies in Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France getting pressured [5]. I'm not very familiar with it, but I'm sure Finland already regrets their previous stance on cloud-infra. Perceptions have fundamentally changed about the United States as an ally. As for GCAP and FCAS, they have different requirements and serve different purposes. What's your take on the next Gripen?
If you want to pressure Volkswagen, go ahead. Nobody cares. The fundamental flaw in your position is your implicit assumption about what we value or what motivates us. We're not Americans. I don't think America's "non-tariff barriers" are a valid concern. They are disingenuous rhetoric for domestic consumption. Heads would roll if there was ever an agreement with the US to lower our standards and open up local industries to competition from lower quality foreign importers due to geopolitical pressure. Pressure is not going to undo the DSA or the GDPR because they have broad support. As others have said, it is decades overdue. If Elon Musk is mad about having to follow the law, I'm sure he can find sympathy elsewhere. His sour grapes are not principled, they are about protecting his ego and finding others who do so for him.
Sorry for the bluntness, but I feel it is very much warranted.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46170683
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46170823
[2] - ibid.
[3] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46171255
[4] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46174642
[5] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46175036
Of course no one cares about random companies in Czechia or France getting pressured; it's not meant to sway public opinion in Sweden, otherwise it would have been a waste of influence (money). I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction.
For example, he might personally support DSA/GDPR, but he says that the US generally views these as “non-tariff barriers” to US service companies[0] and doesn’t bother evaluating the policies themselves. essentially saying for the purposes of predicting how the US will react, it's sufficient to analyze how the US views them and the actual policy details lose relevance in that context. He also shared a detail[0] about how the US placed their lobbyists as commissioners on GDPR, which is an interesting operational detail that argues against the broad support argument you’re making. Another question is whether there would still be broad support for some policy after it has been enacted and its adverse effects have been felt.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46174642
> For example, he might personally support DSA/GDPR, but he says that the US generally views these as “non-tariff barriers” to US service companies[0] and doesn’t bother evaluating the policies themselves. essentially saying for the purposes of predicting how the US will react, it's sufficient to analyze how the US views them and the actual policy details lose relevance in that context. He also shared a detail[0] about how the US placed their lobbyists as commissioners on GDPR, which is an interesting operational detail that argues against the broad support argument you’re making. Another question is whether there would still be broad support for some policy after it has been enacted and its adverse effects have been felt.
This.
> I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction.
This (but does make me sound kind of pretentious). I started my career in Tech Policy (and considered a career in academia for a hot second) before pivoting to being a technical IC and climbing the ladder. I am responding as I would when I was a TF.
--------
I am a supporter of multilateralism and do think the EU was a net benefit, but the EU's approach to unanimity should have been reformed during the 2004-07 expansion, and the Eurozone should have been decoupled from the political goals of the EU then unified. I'd probably say I lean closer to reformist academics like Draghi and Garicano.
> Sorry for the bluntness, but I feel it is very much warranted
No worries. I think you misunderstood my post.
I used to work in the tech policy space, and I'm just bluntly explaining how we in the policymaking space view these discussions - especially with regards to negotiating with the EU.
> As a Swede, I can tell you that not a single person I know cares about random companies in Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France getting pressured
Well duh. You aren't the target for such an influence op. Leadership in (eg.) Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France are.
Much of the EU runs on unanimity, so all you need to do is pressure a single country and you have a veto.
This is what China has been doing with Sweden to a certain extent via Geely-owned Volvo Car Group and Polestar [0] and what we in the US have been doing with Ericcson [1][2][3]. Even the EU tries to use similar levers against the US [6].
To be brutally honest, this is how the game is played.
Most nations have now adopted the "elite-centric approach" to transnational negotiations [4], which makes it difficult for the EU, because the line between national soverignity and the EU with regards to foreign and economic affairs is not well defined. If you are not a veto player [5] your opinion does not matter.
Once you understand Political Science basics, a lot of stuff starts making sense. And I went to a college where heads of states would visit on a biweekly basis, and a large subset of European (and other regions) leaders attended or recruit from.
> What's your take on the next Gripen?
DoA if it depends on a GE power plant - the Volvo engine is a licensed version of the GE F404, so the US has final say on any Saab Gripen exports.
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/02/china-volvo...
[1] - https://broadbandbreakfast.com/ericsson-ceo-calls-for-increa...
[2] - https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/ericsson-ceo-home-si...
[3] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/ericsson-emerges-as-5g-leader-a...
[4] - https://academic.oup.com/book/12848/chapter-abstract/1631276...
[5] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rvv7
[6] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/business/economy/europe-t...
The DSA is decades overdue. It's absurd that there hasn't been one. There's also a dozen non-EU countries that have one, and that number has been growing rapidly.
To call it a "negotiation tool" is like calling literally any import tax or tariff - of which hundreds of thousands existed and were entirely accepted as squarely in the Overton Window long before Trump took office - purely a "negotiation tool". Just because it's new doesn't make it one any more so than such import taxes which have been around for ages.
> There's also a dozen non-EU countries that have one, and that number has been growing rapidly
Not really. Most of them offer significant carve-outs for American BigTech companies, or their implementation has been stayed, or significant capex subsidizes are provided to help reduce their impact for American BigTechs considering FDI in those countries.
It has been a DNC supported policy [0] as well to put pressure on countries that are even considering a digital services act. Heck the Biden admin began the process of making a legal example out of Canada [1] as a warning shot to other countries considering such options.
> To call it a "negotiation tool" is like calling literally any import tax or tariff ... purely a "negotiation tool".
That is what import taxes and tariffs are when not clubbed with subsidizes and formal sector specific industrial policy, because the act of giving MFN status to certain nations is itself a negotiating tactic. Canada's backing down on a digital service tax is a good example of that [2]
The whole point of (eg.) giving the UK preferential market access to the US over the EU, and giving Japan and South Korea preferential market access to the US over China is because it is a lever we can use when negotiating. Heck, France and Germany have both constantly tried leveraging tariffs and import taxes as a negotiating tactic against the US under the Biden admin [3][4] (and of course earlier).
As I mentioned above, this has been a slow-rolling negotiation between the US and EU since 2019. We in the US have bipartisan support to oppose the DSA and DSA-equivalents abroad. It was prominent stance in the Biden administration [0], and even Harris would have put a similar degree of pressure on the EU.
We have no obligation to give Europeans a red carpet, and you guys are not in a position to push back anyhow. The Chinese [5] and Russians have given similar ultimatums to the EU as well. What are you going to do? Sign an FTA with India and then face the same problem in 10 years with them?
You guys have fallen into the same trap that the Mughal and Qing Empires fell into in the 18th-19th century. Anyhow, we've unofficially signalled we are leaving the responsibility of Europe's defenses to Europe by 2027 [6] - meaning member states have no choice but to end up buying American gear or completely vacillate to Russia on Ukraine.
[0] - https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/-wyden-and-cra...
[1] - https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...
[2] - https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2025/06/can...
[3] - https://www.politico.eu/article/france-and-germany-find-grou...
[4] - https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/real-reason...
[5] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/ch...
[6] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-sets-2...
You're still not explaining how the DSA is supposedly a negotiating tactic from the EU any more than you could say that about GDPR. It's a new legal framewo tackling a relatively new set of problems. If any of them get watered down because of deals with the US, then you could make that sort of claim.
> Anyhow, we've unofficially signalled we are leaving the responsibility of Europe's defenses to Europe by 2027 [6] - meaning member states have no choice but to end up buying American gear or completely vacillate to Russia on Ukraine.
Or just buying from the existing European providers? Most American gear has a (sometimes better, cf. all the stuff even the US buys from European companies) European based equivalent. The only major exception is the F-35, but at least one 6th gen European jet is in the works, and unless fighting with the US, an 5th gen stealth fighter isn't really that needed. European manufacturers need to increase output, and they have been working on it and have done so quite a lot already.
> Or just buying from the existing European providers? Most American gear has a (sometimes better, cf. all the stuff even the US buys from European companies) European based equivalent.
That might happen over the long term (I still have doubts given that whenever a joint EU project is formed between two countries with vendors, they inevitabely end up collapsing due to domestic political considerations such as the European MBT and FCAS - no leader wants to be the leader who shut down a factory with 1200 high paying unionized jobs for the greater good), but cannot happen in the 1 year timeframe given.
The reality is, if we the US make a deal with Russia over the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next 12 months, the EU will have no choice but to accept it if you do not put boots on the ground and if you do not expropriate Russian government assets in the EU. But your leadership class has rejected [2] both [3].
> European manufacturers need to increase output, and they have been working on it and have done so quite a lot already.
Not enough for the 1 year time frame needed
> how the DSA is supposedly a negotiating tactic from the EU any more than you could say that about GDPR
We view the DSA as a non-tariff barrier to American services companies. This is both a Trump admin view [0] as well as a Biden-era admin view [1].
We held similarly negative views about the GDPR until Ireland, Czechia, Poland, and Luxembourg accommodated us by hiring our lobbyists as their commissioners.
And this is why every single pan-EU project fails - every major country like the US (previously listed) and China [4][5] cultivated economic and political ties with members that act as vetos in decisions that have a unanimity requirements.
This is why I gave the comparison to the Qing and Mughal Empire - the English, French, and other European nations broke both empires by leveraging one-sided economic deals with subnational units (eg. the Bengal Subah in the Mughal Empire and the unequal treaties in the Qing Empire), which slowly gnawed away at unity.
We in the US, China, Russia, India, and others are starting to do the same to you - not out of explicit strategy, but due to the return of multipolarity and most European state's failure to recover from the Eurozone crisis.
[0] - https://www.ft.com/content/3f67b6ca-7259-4612-8e51-12b497128...
[1] - https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/-wyden-and-cra...
[2] - https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczyt-w-paryzu-donald-tusk-przed-wy...
[3] - https://www.ft.com/content/616c79ee-34de-425a-865e-e94ba10be...
[4] - http://en.cppcc.gov.cn/2025-11/13/c_1140641.htm
[5] - https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202405/10/content_WS663d3b83...
> whenever a joint EU project is formed between two countries with vendors, they inevitabely end up collapsing due to domestic political considerations such as the European MBT and FCAS - no leader wants to be the leader who shut down a factory with 1200 high paying unionized jobs for the greater good
Eurofighter Typhoon and before that the Panavia Tornado. That lineage's next up is the GCAP 6th gen plane.
Horizon/Orizonte and after that the FREMM (which is so good even the US are buying it). In general Italian/French naval cooperation is very strong.
The whole of MBDA and hell even Airbus were created for inter-country cooperation.
There are plenty of successful examples on which to build on, as well as failures from which to learn. But again, today very few military things cannot be sourced from a European supplier. BAE, Leonardo, Dassault, Thales, Rheinmetall, KNDS, Saab, Fincantieri, Naval Group, Indra, Airbus, MBDA etc. are world leaders in their respective fields.
> The reality is, if we the US make a deal with Russia over the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the next 12 months, the EU will have no choice but to accept it if you do not put boots on the ground and if you do not expropriate Russian government assets in the EU
No? US can sign whatever bootlicking deal it wants with Russia, but it's up to Ukraine what happens actually. The EU will continue backing Ukraine. Boots on the ground are highly unlikely, but exploration of Russian assets is quite probable (opposition isn't massive, and as time goes on, will only whither).
> We view the DSA as a non-tariff barrier to American services companies. This is both a Trump admin view [0] as well as a Biden-era admin view [1].
Cool, nobody cares. The US has put in sufficient actual tariffs that it cannot scream "unfair". EU leaders will try to negotiate whatever they can to lower short term economic damage, but the long term damage is done. The US is not a reliable trade or anything partner, and there's no going back on that.
Regarding your Mughal and Qing comparisons... Damn, where do I even start? EU isn't a country, so the comparison is off from the start.
> The EU will continue backing Ukraine
How? Ukraine uses American intel for targeting, a significant amount of American munitions either bought directly from the US or indirectly by member states, and more critically, we in the US can force Ukraine to the table by preventing access to these systems.
> but exploration of Russian assets is quite probable (opposition isn't massive...
How? Belgium has vetoed expropriating Russian assets [0] because the ECB rejected providing a backstop. And Hungary has vetoed the utilization of Eurobonds [1]
If EU member states cannot expropriate Russian assets nor provide boots on the ground in Ukraine nor provide munitions and intel to replace American offerings in the next 1 year, what else is there that the EU can do?
On top of that, we've given the 2027 deadline for NATO, so now what should the EU prioritize?
> That lineage's next up is the GCAP 6th gen plane
Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian. And that's my point. No EU joint defense project succeeds because inevitably individual states in the EU protect their champions
> The US is not a reliable trade or anything partner, and there's no going back on that.
Yep. And who else is there? The Chinese gave the exact same ultimatum as the US to European leadership, and so are the Indians as part of the FTA negotiation.
And we can always put the squeeze on Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and LVMH and make both Germany and France squeal [2] and blunt any regulations coming out of the EU as a result - just like the China [3] and India [4].
> are world leaders in their respective fields
They absolutely are in R&D and IP, but their production will not scale out until 2029-35, at which point it would be too late.
[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-03/belgium-r...
[1] - https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-shoots-down-eurobond...
[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-03/eu-fight-...
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/china-eu-trade-spats-n...
[4] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volksw...
> Ukraine uses American intel for targeting
They have been cut off already. But if you think that Ukraine was flying blind until now if not for US targeting, I don't know what to tell you.
> Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian
No, Leonardo is Italian with significant presence in the UK. But in any case the British component is provided by BAE Systems (which also heavily participate in F-35). And yes, it's not an EU project, it's a project in which European countries and companies are taking part. Does that change anything?
> Which isn't really an EU project - it's a Leonardo SA - Mitsubishi project as Leonardo is dual British-Italian. And that's my point
> No EU joint defense project succeeds because inevitably individual states in the EU protect their champions
Do I need to list the big successes again? This is categorically not true.
> How? Belgium has vetoed expropriating Russian assets [0] because the ECB rejected providing a backstop. And Hungary has vetoed the utilization of Eurobonds [1]
Belgium can be convinced potentially, and with any luck Orban would be heading to prison next year, so Hungary wouldn't be vetoing Eurobonds.
> The Chinese gave the exact same ultimatum as the US to European leadership, and so are the Indians as part of the FTA negotiation.
What ultimatum? To drop DSA? Source?
> They absolutely are in R&D and IP, but their production will not scale out until 2029-35, at which point it would be too late.
Production of what? This is so industry and company specific that I struggle taking you seriously just throwing random years like that for everything. And in any case one the major weapon of the war is drones, for which manufacturing is mostly local in Ukraine. There are a million other things that go into a war machine, but pretending that the second US cuts supplies Ukraine has to surrender is disingenuous.
> Belgium can be convinced potentially
They cannot. The Belgian government has categorically rejected expropriation 3 days ago because the ECB rejected providing any funding, and Euroclear has announced it will fight the EU in Belgian court if any steps are taken to do so [2] with Belgian govenenent backing [4], so those funds would anyhow be frozen for years.
You aren't even reading any of my citations.
> Orban would be heading to prison next year, so Hungary wouldn't be vetoing Eurobonds
We still have Slovakia [3].
> What ultimatum? To drop DSA? Source
Over other regulations like CBAM [0]. The same way the US is playing hard ball over the DSA, China+India are playing hard ball over CBAM.
> Leonardo is Italian with significant presence in the UK
Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1], but being a single overarching conglomerate makes it significantly easier to manage the GCAP project, versus FCAS which became a Renault-Airbus spat which turned into a France-Germany spat.
> but pretending that the second US cuts supplies Ukraine has to surrender is disingenuous.
EU leadership has admitted this fact [5] and even best case projections [6] show it is a Herculean task in the next 1 year.
[0] - https://asia.nikkei.com/economy/trade/india-and-china-make-t...
[1] - https://www.leonardo.com/en/suppliers/supplier-portal/helico...
[2] - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2025/11/15/eurocle...
[3] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-08/slovakia-...
[4] - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/12/06/b...
[5] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/25/kaja-kallas-intervi...
[6] - https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us...
> Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1], but being a single overarching conglomerate makes it significantly easier to manage the GCAP project, versus FCAS which became a Renault-Airbus spat which turned into a France-Germany spat.
I have a hard time with you, you sound extremely confident in your opinions, provide sources and everything, and then make massive errors like saying no European common military projects work (after having been given a list of the big hits), confuse what Leonardo is and who is working on GCAP, and now you're confusing Renault (a car manufacturer that used to make planes a century ago, and that has recently said they'll look into making drones from underused factories) and Dassault Aviation.
To top it off, you cite sources that don't support your claims.
> Yep, and as a result needs to continue to follow UK specific regulations and export controls [1],
And cite a source that merely says "Requirement to rate each part number being exported from the UK in accordance with the UK Military Classification List; " (emphasis mine).
> Over other regulations like CBAM [0]. The same way the US is playing hard ball over the DSA, China+India are playing hard ball over CBAM.
"Playing hardball" is not ultimatum. And your source doesn't even support your "hard ball" claim, it says India tried pushing back which was refused by the EU.
> To top it off, you cite sources that don't support your claims.
I may have made 1 mistake in that citation, but you have clearly not read the other. And you clearly aren't citing anything
> I have a hard time with you
The feeling is mutual.
Answer my questions of how or it's just whataboutism.
It's not "any company", it's exceptionally large platforms who can give insight into large societal questions and have enough influence to sway people's opinions. The data is technically public already, researchers could scrape it, but investigations has to be able to be done to ensure the platforms aren't used to intentionally steer people's opinion in a specific direction, since they're unable to self regulate that it seems.
But governments themselves can steer people's opinions just fine? Can I get access to my politicians' emails "for research purposes"?
> Can I get access to my politicians' emails "for research purposes"?
In the US that's called an FOIA. It could include their personal devices if they use them for work communication. It's not limited to research purposes.
No, they cannot. And yes, in some countries you can request that if you have a reason for it.
Are those emails already public?
They changed the blue check from an exclusive club of the rich and popular, to just Ive got a paying account. How is that misleading? Why does the EU have a say about design choices?
The blue check symbolised (symbolises) being verified, i.e. this account belongs to who it says it does. But it doesn't carry out any/sufficient checks to actually verify that.
See also: https://x.com/jesus/status/1590405986925543424
Twitter created that definition and now the EU has the divine right to not let them change it? Verified can and does mean many things.
The common meaning of language is important. If they want it to mean something other than 'verified' as commonly understood, they should rename it.
They have the legal right, similar to the federal government in the USA. You can disagree with their judgement, but they clearly have the right to enforce it.
If every government in the world has a say on everything, nothing is permitted.
They do though within their borders?
referring to legality is self referential, since they enact the laws, everything they do can be legal. US could sentence commissioners to prison by enacting certain laws or declare war, we wouldn't certainly say 'they have a right to do that' in that situation.
Governments actually have the legal right to enact regulations on how companies operate within their jurisdiction.
If the company does not want to comply they can simply stop operating there.
No divine right, just consumer protection.
USanians have been raised to believe that corporations are somehow above the law but that’s not true. Play stupid games, earn stupid fines a.k.a fuck with people and people will fuck back.
There's no actual need for checks.
They call it 'verified', and, er, do not seem to do much in the way of verification. I mean, it's hard not to see it as misleading at the very least.
I left the EU years ago. Today, I feel way happier and freer. Once you're out, you realize how strongly they were influencing your ability to be free via rules, taxes, news, low salaries, and business start-up costs. Try it yourself if you get the chance.
Give us a vague breakdown of you finances, might do.
And where he left to.
eurofounder and compliantvc having blue checks was probably the final straw.
> "Europe is taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations," Carr said.
And America is taxing Americans via tariffs to subsidize a corrupt executive branch lining its own pockets. At least Europe is looking out for a whole continent. Not just a handful of grifters.
Europe does tax its people a lot more. So the argument doesn't make sense.
Taxes which are used wisely for the people’s benefit is not a wasteful thing. That was the point original commentator made.
Your reasoning is that taxation is always bad and the more you pay the worst, a very American view which I can understand given how badly US government spends money in this regard.
I made no such reasoning. The parent comment wrote about taxes like its something bad.
It didn't just say tax, it suggested what the taxes were for, and how they were levied.
If we're all going to be persnickety about things, let's use the whole context.
Still doesn't make sense. How are tariffs "subsidising" corruption? What does that even mean?
It's just a dog whistle. People hate tax, so calling things that are not tax "tax" triggers anger in people without deep critical thinking skills. Or people with skills but not enough energy or time to use them on this particular issue.
Actually the difference isn't that big when you consider that "taxes" (I'm using this to describe all (semi-)mandatory state money extraction from revenues, whether they're called tax, insurance, cotisation, etc) in European countries cover the majority of healthcare and retirement costs that Americans pay out of pocket. But still have to pay. So if the US had the same "tax" model as European countries do, the rate wouldn't be that off (VAT is usually higher than American sales taxes, income tax often has higher brackets, but Americans spend a lot more on healthcare and retirement).
> "Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU," said European Commission Vice President Henna Virkkunen.
I agree. Good EU!
> Pre-empting the announcement on Thursday night, United States Vice President JD Vance that "the EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage."
Sorry, but your garbage has influence outside the US. Keep it to yourself or clean up.
Deception and fraud aren't even protected by the 1st Amendment, and the blue checkmark scheme being pay-to-win is definitely leaning that way, if not just straight up there. Seems the EU thought is just is.
And if you care so much about free speech, maybe you should be more open about those ads of yours?
Elon Musk's completely reasonable response:
> The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46163721
I mean, is there really any reason to continue offering the service in Europe? I highly doubt the revenue is really worth the trouble.
It’s not for profit. Elon put 45 billion dollars into it as a vehicle to influence even more people of the world particularly politicians.
His open stance and clear support or rebuke of various political figures and parties around the world is a clear indication of this.
It’s an effective tool to influence less informed people. How else would they make Farage/Brexit/FN/VB/Orban/… things relevant in public discourse?
At this point, X is a propaganda tool for the radical right. I won't miss X in Europe if you decide to remove access to EU. Please, do it.
Mind you, 120M USD is peanuts for Musk. If it were me, I'd just fine X 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 USD just because I want to retaliate against Trump's silliness. If you wanna play hardball, expect it back. But, but... freedom of bullshit. You can keep that, we can perfectly use freedom of speech on solid platforms instead.
[flagged]
> Europe should fight its own wars. We civilized them.
It's a whole new level of naive if you think the Nazi's would have left the US alone after they were done with Europe.
[flagged]
^
This sort of shit-tier troll post is what you'll find in X times a million, because it's probably amplified by bots.
I'd be happy to see X gone. You won't be missed.
How is it wrong? The US had nukes, Germany didnt. The US showed a willingness to use them too. Twice in fact.
Let's see;
\1 In real actual history, the US didn't developed a working nuclear weapon based on UK provided designs until after the German surrender.
So in real history there was no chance to "glass" an active EU war zone during WWII.
\2 In the GP's fantasy history in which the US left Europe alone to deal with the Nazi's on their own, the MAUD folk would have never passed on their research to the US and the US would have wallowed in their belief that nuclear weapons were impractical and continued on messing about with atomic power from big piles.
This is historical revisionism.
The US saw the MAUD report before entering the war. American scientists received copies as early as October (chemist James Conant received it october 3). But the US didnt commit to entering the war until after Pearl Harbor, December 8.
You are mixing the order of events.
Second you are overstating its importance. The primary contribution of the report is scientific feasibility.
Every part of the engineering and design of the bombs was done in secret in the US without any other country collaboration. They didnt need "UK provided designs" because there was no such thing.
> Europe should fight its own wars.
We... do? Of course, if you'd like to name whatever wars we're a) involved with and b) not fighting ourselves, then that would be splendid.
Anyway, how is that relevant to enforcing the DSA on X?
> We civilized them. And we may have to civilize them again.
What does this even mean? What do you mean by "civilize"? Also this sounds very much like how colonialism and imperialism were justified back in the 19th and 20th centuries.
But again, what does this have to do with X and DSA?
> But until they turn to yet another genocide maybe we should just let the Europeans have at each other.
Russia is currently conducting a genocide over in Ukraine, for example by kidnapping children and bringing them over to Russia and beyond, for example to North Korea.
This is a war crime and also genocidal. So by your admission you ought to be helping.
But again, what does this have to do with X and DSA?
> We can pay them the $150m to let them take care of Ukraine themselves. It was bad enough we had to drag them by the nose to the water. Maybe enough is enough.
We are taking care of Ukraine. Most of the aid is coming from various EU states, and the organisation itself.
Of course, the United States is the largest singular donator and also has donated some very important capabilities to Ukraine, for which people should be and are thankful for, but the claim that Europe isn't doing anything for Ukraine is just false. Could we do more? Absolutely. Should we? Yes. But that doesn't mean that nothing is happening.
But I must ask again, what does this have to do with X or the DSA?
> What does this even mean? What do you mean by "civilize"?
Teach them not to gas millions of people, that kind of thing. Nothing outrageous or anything.
> Russia is currently conducting a genocide over in Ukraine, for example by kidnapping children and bringing them over to Russia and beyond, for example to North Korea.
Ukrainian casualties are nothing like what Germany was inflicting on people. The latter rises to the standard. The former perhaps not.
To be honest, at first I thought we had to help a European country being invaded by Russia, but over time I've realized that Europeans mostly don't want us there. This is an internal affair for them. Some Europeans killing other Europeans. If it gets to the millions of civilians dead, then yeah they've fallen back into their atavistic ways and we have to go clean up again. But otherwise you kind of have to let Europeans be Europeans.
Blowing up their pipeline to get them to help themselves was unnecessary. If they don't want to help, they don't have to. It's up to them. We've got stuff to deal with. And they don't appreciate it anyway. They primarily treat the US as some kind of pinata to pop out money and weapons any time they decide to go kill each other.
> Ukrainian casualties are nothing like what Germany was inflicting on people. The latter rises to the standard. The former perhaps not.
The UN convention on prevention of genocide doesn't have any victim threshold for what counts as genocide.
> To be honest, at first I thought we had to help a European country being invaded by Russia, but over time I've realized that Europeans mostly don't want us there
Anyone using "Europeans" to broadly paint a whole continent with a single brush as expressing a singular opinion is at best extremely misinformed, at worst...
Anyways, Ukrainians very much want American support. And have been providing invaluable information on exactly how the Russians work and think in exchange for it.
In most EU member states, the majority of people, wanted US and EU side by side helping Ukraine. After all, most of those countries sent soldiers to help US kill a bunch of Iraqis, wouldn't it be nice to do it for a good cause for a change? Of course, the ~20-30-40% of Russophiles in multiple Central and Eastern European countries (like Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, etc) didn't want that, they wanted their "brothers" to win. But they're mostly irrelevant, and mostly dying off.
That's also why it's stupid to paint any war as just "it's just Europeans killing Europeans or just Africans killing Africans". How does that change anything about the war, or its casualties? Was Srebrenica not a genocide that merited being stopped just because both were Balkan peoples? Does the war in Sudan deserve no attention because it's just Africans?
But Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
> Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
The quietly released (no fanfare) 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States of America that dropped last night explicitly steers the US away from traditional European allies and embraces Russia.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46171812
> But Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
Exactly. Europeans believe we are not partners any more and that we never will be. There’s really no reason for us to send anything to Ukraine. When we were partners it made sense but as you point out, Europeans don’t believe that’s the case. So I think it’s time to move on and stop trying to force an alliance that doesn’t want to be together.
We should disband NATO and adjust to the new world order where Europe and the US are not allies, just participants in a multipolar world. If Europeans want to fight Europeans, we should let them work it out.
It’s not our business and they don’t want us in it. The allies we pick should be ones who want to be allied with us. America lost four hundred thousand men for your last internal conflict. We requested and got a token few thousand men over all the times we needed you. The debt will remain unpaid. And that’s okay.
You don’t want us and we don’t want you. It’s time to get a divorce.
[flagged]
Sounds more like SV technologist rulers are trying to conolise the world. Europe is less potent and threatening than even Elon at this point of time.
Don't do business in Europe if you don't like it. It's not hard.
And if you must use these kind of loaded terms, insisting you MUST be allowed to do business on YOUR TERMS and your terms alone is pretty much how colonisation started.
Loaded terms? The truth is the truth. Looks like the truth ruffles colonial feathers. Sad.
Crazy.