As a small developer, you wouldn't fall under the DMA.

I think you're missing that circumventing paywalls is unlawful in most parts of the world.

As a government you should not be putting your stuff in an environment under control of some other nation, period. That is a completely different issue and does not really relate to making backups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Also, I don’t think that the parent comment was being serious.

- They are not asking for consent, there is just an ok button. - They assume consent when you navigate further on the site, this is not valid consent. - Consent needs to be for specific, well defined purposes. “help personalize content, tailor and measure ads and provide a safer experience” are three purposes in one and none of them are well defined. - They are probably already setting the cookies in your first request, when you have not seen any information yet (did not check)

No, it wouldn't have been, as the DMA only applies to 'gatekeepers' and if you're new, you're simply not a gatekeeper. You need at least 45 million monthly active users and 7,5 billion of revenue for three years.

> So EU should change Apple’s and Google’s status from producer to provider of essential service like electricity for example.

That's the whole point of the DMA: designate these parties as 'gatekeepers', providing essential services ('core platform services' in terms of the DMA). Once you are, you have certain obligations that should allow proper interoperability with other/smaller parties.

That's because your search engine results are a joke, not because of the DMA.

If I search for 'hotel ', I get an ad from Booking.com, then some hotel ad, then an ad from Trivago, then some Google map with hotels (make sense, but all results there are sponsored by intermediaries), then Booking.com, then Booking.com again, then Expedia, then Tripadvisor, then Trivago.

If you only present me sponsored results from intermediaries, then don't be surprised that people only click on sponsored results of intermediaries.

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007061452-Do...

Hopefully the US will follow some day.

In the Netherlands we have BKR, which is less all-encompassing than SCHUFA, but also needed to be fined before giving proper right to access under the GDPR: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/national-cred...

The Irish DPC states they never approved anything (but there has been discussions between various European data protection authorities and the EDPB during the investigation). See for example 2.44 or 2.46 of the report [1]:

> It is factually not the case that the Commission endorsed or approved of the Terms of Service and Data Policy of Facebook or indeed of any other organisation

and

> To the extent that Facebook seeks to rely on or has ever relied on any consultative process with the Commission in order to defend the lawfulness of a particular practice, this has been in error. More pertinently, for present purposes, Facebook makes no such argument in the context of this Complaint. This is because the Commission never provided any such approval in this case nor does it do so in the context of its engagement and consultation role more generally

If you look at the final decision on Meta, you'll see that most of the fine (80+70=150 million) is for the fact that Meta was not clear on what they were doing with user's data. Only the last 60 million is about the actual legal ground of the processing. So the past that Ben Thompson mentions essentially skips 70% of the fines.

And yes, the data protection authorities are acting like a fair player and they are not the referee. We have courts for that (and this will find it's way through the courts, no worries).

[1]: https://www.dataprotection.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/20...

[1]: https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/data-protection-...

Do you have any source for that, or are you just making up things on the spot here? (I can help you, it's the latter)

Data processing is not just about 'keeping a record'. Processing even for a millisecond is also processing.

> Otherwise everything is PII and you would need consent before every TCP handshake.

Consent is not the only ground for data processing. Normally, it would just be performance of a contract, as the user wants something from you.

How are you exactly going to submit it anonymously? Will it connect over Tor? Because if you just send it over your internet connection, it arrives with your IP address on the packets, which is PII, which makes it data processing of PII, which makes it require a legal basis to process. And it is legally uncertain that 'legitimate interest' is a valid ground for telemetry data, leaving only opt-in consent.

For example, PCExtreme had simple dynamic hosting for 1.95 EUR/month before acquisition [1]. Current pricing after a rebrand is 4.99 EUR/month [2] and in turn you get 1/10th of the storage and traffic.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180831051543/https://www.pcext... [2]: https://www.versio.nl/webhosting

I guess it was taken care of.

> Our system is currently down due to upstream telephone carrier issues