accused of repeat copyright infringements

Does this court determine whether this concrete accusation against a person holds as well, or does this court determine whether an accusation is enough?

Is that the conclusion? I thought that’s still under investigation. I remember reading about it months after the first reports.

It’s sad how huge companies are basically their CEO. CEO makes decisions and talks - that’s the company. Even if the hundreds and thousands of workers below them [largely] disagree and would do differently.

I wonder how this will work. If they use third party services under GDPR they’ll have to disclose that data may or will be shared. So at least in that case it should be obvious that end-to-end is not a thing but only one channel of transfer.

If they scan themselves, I would assume it’s also necessary to disclose under GDPR as working with and through personal data.

The Council also wants to make permanent a currently temporary measure that allows companies to – voluntarily – scan their services for child sexual abuse. At present, providers of messaging services, for instance, may voluntarily check content shared on their platforms for online child sexual abuse material, and report and remove it. This is allowed thanks to an exemption from certain rules specific to the electronic communications sector. Although this exemption is due to expire on 3 April 2026, according to the Council position, it will continue to apply. [src]

So we already had the exemption active, apparently. I just hope this exemption does not invalidate the necessity for transparency about systematic handling of data?

On the basis of today’s agreement, the Council can start negotiations with the European Parliament with a view to agreeing on the final regulation. The European Parliament reached its position in November 2023.

Linking with a timestamp to the end of the video (no more honking) is quite the comedic turnaround

Exactly, one of the ways. And it’s a bandaid that doesn’t work very well. Because it’s probabalistic word association without direct association to intention, variance, or concrete prompts.

They link to it in the article, but for visibility, the resignation of Japanese SUMO community lead, contributor of 20 years. They voice their concrete issues.

deleted by creator

I’m out of the loop. What did they do to erode your trust in their public behavior?

And how does that relate to their current claims and issues? Are you saying they may be lying or falsifying? Otherwise I don’t see how it wouldn’t be relevant to their project as well.

Until they fake author or print dates.

Google’s fault. Their prevalence and search ranking decisions.

edit: I dropped the"entirely" from “Google’s fault” because I guess it’s a decision by the platforms and without too, even if the alternative means less to no discoverability on Google.

This comparison and equation baffles me. Yes, the EU has its own challenges and concerns. But it’s also the one with the best set of rules, regulations, and structure to prevent them.

Equating the hypothetical future of EU erosion on the same, at least implied, level as Russia is insane.

Even if a small country aligns with no big institution, it seems fairly likely to me that that will be a weaker system against malicious parties. The EU supports, funds, and pushes democratic, human rights, and anti corruption. The EU can be and often is an incentive for systematic change. Not towards a negative, but towards a better system.

It’s insane that there hasn’t been a huge shift in EU assessment of the US. Are they blind to current US politics and happenings? How can they not care about that or be ignorant to it?

I guess I’ll “balance it out”, here at least, with a link to the YouTube channel China Insider with David Zhang, which highlights some negative things about China.