The EU Designates 17 Sites As ‘Very Large Online Platforms’ Subject To DSA’s Most Stringent Rules
from the rodents-of-unusual-size dept
I’ve been criticizing the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) approach to internet regulations, because they’re doing this “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” bit in which they insist that the DSA is not regulating speech, but then they admit that the point of the DSA is to see less “bad” speech on the internet.
But, whether we like it or not, it’s here. And it’s going to have a pretty big impact. Part of the law is that, while it does impact online services of all sizes, there are some categories, based on size, that will lead to more stringent rules, with the most notable one being the “Very Large Online Platforms” or VLOPs. As one friend of mine has noted, it feels kinda like the “Rodents of Unusual Size” or ROUS’s from The Princess Bride.
Even though the DSA went into effect last year, there were still a bunch of things to clarify before it meant anything, and that included who would qualify as a VLOP. There had been some discussion about whether or not Twitter would even qualify (to which one policy person told me that the EU would rewrite the rules until Twitter absolutely qualified, because they were clearly targeting the company).
A bunch of platforms were required to hand over a bunch of info to the EU to make their final determination, and now the EU has declared 17 platforms from 13 different companies to be VLOPs, and yes, Twitter made the cut:
Very Large Online Platforms:
- Alibaba AliExpress
- Amazon Store
- Apple AppStore
- Booking.com
- Google Play
- Google Maps
- Google Shopping
- Snapchat
- TikTok
- Wikipedia
- YouTube
- Zalando
I don’t think there are really any surprises here, though people outside of the EU may be less familiar with Zalando, a successful online retailer platform in the EU. Potentially Booking.com is a bit surprising? And, personally, I can’t think of anyone who uses Google Shopping, but I guess a bunch of people do.
The very different platforms on the list also make me wonder how some of these platforms are going to deal with the various rules. Google Maps’ content moderation decisions seem… to be in a different category from Wikipedia’s, which would be very, very different from a mobile app store.
Anyway, now that Twitter is on the list, we’ll have to see if Elon still is happy that he vocally endorsed the DSA approach for Twitter a year ago. We noted, at the time, that he’d likely come to regret this, as it seemed to go against a variety of the things he claimed to stand for. Of course, now that he may start to face regulatory burdens from the DSA (and they can be very burdensome), it will not be surprising to see him change his tune on the EU.
The other one that will be interesting to see is Wikipedia. As noted above, there are pretty big differences in many of these platforms, but Wikiepedia’s moderation model is not just different in style, it’s just entirely different as so much of it is done by volunteer editors. It seems like it’s going to be a compliance challenge for Wikipedia to have to set up an appeals board for some of its content choices, as the DSA will require.
The EU also designated Google and Bing as “Very Large Online Search Engines” which also now have some specific rules, but no on else made the cut. That’s not too surprising.
I still fear the way this is going to play out, though we’ll see in the long run. As our recent research indicated, other internet regulations have served to stifle speech and competition, and give more control to the “very large” online providers who have the ability to deal with the compliance costs. One hopes that the end result of the DSA is not the same, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s how it ended up.
Filed Under: content moderation, dsa, speech rules, very large online platforms, vlops
Companies: alibaba, amazon, apple, booking.com, facebook, google, instagram, linkedin, meta, pinterest, snapchat, tiktok, twitter, wikipedia, youtube, zalando
Comments on “The EU Designates 17 Sites As ‘Very Large Online Platforms’ Subject To DSA’s Most Stringent Rules”
Why does this remind me of the ealy history of the printing press, where those in power tried to control the new technology so that it did not challenge their power. They eventually failed, and the feudal systems they were trying to protect collapsed.
Re:
And only a few million people died in the subsequent wars of religion, so it all worked out for everyone
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I expect to read many an article by Mike impotently raising his hackles at the DSA and the DMA, much like he keeps whining about the GDPR and pretending it was some kind of disaster.
Re:
The GDPR has some good parts and some bad parts. I’m sorry that you are mad that I keep pointing out the bad parts. But, you know, they exist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
A while back, you said that the GDPR was a failure in your opinion. Now you say it has “good parts and bad parts”? Did something happen to change your mind in the last few months, or are you just pretending you didn’t say that to make your stance look better right now?
Re: Re: Re:
You are aware that something can be considered a failure even though it contains parts that are good. Or are you such a simpleton that you can’t grasp that?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Given how I don’t think Mike has ever said a single good thing about GDPR up until right now, where he said it has “good parts”? I still think that Mike is shifting his stance to seem correct.
Re: Re: Re:3
So the basis for your argument is that you think he hasn’t said something? Come back when you actually know he hasn’t.
Re: Re: Re:4
And then this other piece by Mike. Sure seems to me like he’s never had a good thing to say about it and is moving his goalposts to make himself seem correct.
lets see.
Alibaba AliExpress NOT IN EU, NOT NEAR EU Amazon Store
Apple AppStore
Booking.com What do reservations have to do with Speech?
Facebook FB not Liable for OTHERS POSTS.
Google Play GAMES, now you aim at GAMES?
Google Maps WHY?You dont like pics of your home?
Google Shopping referral company. Sned you to where you THINK food is.
Instagram Speech
LinkedIn WHY?
Pinterest BIG site claims every pic on the net.
Snapchat
TikTok
Twitter
Wikipedia
YouTube
Zalando
Re: oops
Snapchat Speech
TikTok Speech
Twitter Speech
Wikipedia Anyone can edit, until its locked.
YouTube WHY??
Zalando German Shoe store?
Re: Re:
YouTube – Speech
Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube also are not liable for what other people post.
…and what is the purpose of including the two major app stores (Apple’s App Store and Google Play) under the rule definition?
Re:
Oh dear. I fear you’ve decided to rant nonsense again instead of looking at facts….
Aliexpress have physical retail stores in Europe, and are expanding. For example: https://www.surinenglish.com/malaga/malaga-city/aliexpress-open-its-first-store-malaga-this-20230308114321-nt.html
“Booking.com What do reservations have to do with Speech?”
Listings? Reviews? I mean if you read the proposals it’s not just about speech, but it’s clear there’s plenty of speech going on there.
“Facebook FB not Liable for OTHERS POSTS.”
Good thing that’s not what this is about, then?
“Google Play GAMES, now you aim at GAMES?”
There’s more than games on there, but yes, being games does not magically make the platforms offering them exempt.
“LinkedIn WHY?”
Why not? Does it magically stop being of concern what’s happening on a social media site just because it’s geared toward business users?
Instead of copying the list and adding nonsense, you should read into what’s happening. It would be very educational for you.
Re: Re: Ok.
Aliexpress have physical retail stores in Europe, and are expanding. For example: https://www.surinenglish.com/malaga/malaga-city/aliexpress-open-its-first-store-malaga-this-20230308114321-nt.html
WOW, a store with 1/10000 of the product line to sell to locals.
““Booking.com What do reservations have to do with Speech?”
Listings? Reviews? I mean if you read the proposals it’s not just about speech, but it’s clear there’s plenty of speech going on there.”
WOW, you want ALL speech monitored? I never knew. Only ppl worried here are the corps.
Then Express what is considered LARGE. The number of Employees they hire locally? They are Large based on how many locations they have??
Bookings MIGHT have server setups all over but monitored by 10 people on each.
Explain Large.
Social media? Youtube is social and media. FB yep. BUT ALSO more personal OPINION then anything else. Unless you want to Count SPAM/False adverts.
Re: Re: Re: I think
I know the problem.
THEY DONT HAVE ANY advertising agencies listed. Or any advertisers.
Re: Re: Re:2
you are so right, thank you for reminding that, I didn’t myself thought about it.
You should add TVs network. Their website might be relatively small, but have huge impact
Re: Re: Re:2
Well… they do. They just don’t name the advertising departments.
Re: Re: Re:
“WOW, a store with 1/10000 of the product line to sell to locals”
So, not zero presence as you claimed?
“WOW, you want ALL speech monitored?”
If you read what is being presented, it’s less scary. But, that’s not what you complained about in the beginning.
Re:
Depends, is “No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” speech?
Dear European Union bureaucrats,
We are volunteers, not employees, of Wikipedia. To the extent that your DSA legislation affects us:
We are volunteers. We decline. Thanks, but we’re good as we are.
Thanks.
The wikipedia editors, collectively.
Re:
ye, well, no. You may speak for yourself as you wish, be signing “The wikipedia editors, collectively.” is well over the line.
I am a wikipedia editor, but I am no volunter. Wikipedia is Hell which offer plomo o plata. No regulation will change that, short of shutting it down, except maybe some kind of labor tax on “volunters” and paying of NOT volunter like me
Absurdly difficult to dig down to on the web.
REGULATION (EU) 2022/2065
… the relevant legislation.
Re: Penalties
The penalties for non-compliance are all described as percentages (4%, 6%, some others) of turnover or revenue. There’s even a 0.05% supervisory fee for the EU assessing the platform to see if any penalties are due.
In the case of the Wikipedias (English, French, German, Spanish, … there’s a lot of them), what turnover or revenue is that? Ad revenue? Subscription revenue? There isn’t any of either. This sounds like they’ll be calculating umpteen percent of €0.
I wonder if the EU will accept a cheque for €0.
Disappointingly I can’t find a Wikipedia page describing the issue of cheques for a zero amount to satisfy bills and final demands for payment for bills of a zero amount, which I’m pretty sure have been a thing ever since computers started to be used for payment processing.
Re: Re: wikipedia revenu
Don’t be so sarcastic. “Revenues” will probably be defined as any money wikipedia gets, and it does get money from others, like, google, or the donations (akin to subscription) it ask from time to time. Granted, penalties would be small, but would still be 4 or 5% of the budget, so it would hurt somewhat.
Moreover, wikipedia always try to comply to regulations if possible. “fuck you law-makers, I don’t care to comply” is not their way, as evidenced by the other news about their legal fight in Russia.
OTOH I see no reason why it would be hard for them to comply, after all Wikipedia could probably be defined as the ultimate speech control tool, cleverly using a scheme were some customers work for free to control other customers speech, under the duress that if they don’t, other will do it in a way they don’t like, and with the candy that if they do, they can do it as they like. Hence the famous “edit war”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
See? It’s not so hard to define the “large” in large generic speech platforms.
Re:
What is the definition?
Re: Re:
In this case, it’s done by enumeration.
Re: Re: Re:
“Enumeration” being… in this case the EU regulators just declaring who is large based on feelings? I thought you were against government regulation?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That I am against government regulation of speech doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t comment that it’s not that hard to define “large”, even if it’s just by fiat.
I point out that you are consistently in favor of using antitrust regulation to prevent large telecom companies from merging, which is also the government defining largeness.
Re: Re: Re:3
Define “large” within the context of the size of Internet services—and do it in a way that is objectively and inarguably correct.
I’ll wait.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
You seem to have this notion, over and over again, that you get to demand that people answer your questions in specific ways. But you are no one’s boss, and no one needs to do what you ask.
“Large” doesn’t need to be defined by me in anything but general terms since we’re just talking about large generic speech platforms voluntarily choosing not to censor opinions based in viewpoint. It doesn’t need to be defined by Europe in anything but the terms they used because they’re the government and can do whatever they want.
Re: Re: Re:5
You want me to take you seriously. (Why else would you keep coming back here?) For me to do that, you’ll need to define “large” in the context of “large generic speech platforms” such that I can agree with you. Only then can we get to the problems with the rest of that phrase.
Re: Re: Re:4
Law is not science, you know? Their is no “objectively and inarguably correct.” but rather “I am the boss, I decide whether you like it or not”
“I am the EU bureaucrat judge who gets to decide, here is my list”
“I am the final EU judge who gets to decide after you argued against the bureaucrat’s, here is my list.”
End of the story.
Re:
Fuck off, Hyman, you free reach–wanting asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I don’t want free reach, but at least that’s attainable. You want men to be women and women, men, and that’s something that is, and always will be, physically impossible.
Re: Re: Re:
What qualifications do you have to be able to tell people how they should be treated? Also, you life experience must be lacking to take such an absolutist position on sex and gender.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The nice thing about opposition to gender ideology is that it takes no qualifications at all to know that it’s false, and that people can only ever be the sex of their bodies. As in The Emperor’s New Clothes, it takes vain and foolish sophisticates to spin fantasies of things that are not there.
Re: Re: Re:3
Only if you ignore what people with qualifications say about it, and you believe that doctors would intentionally do harm to patients. Meanwhile you attitude and hounding of trans people is doing them harm.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Intentionally do harm” is a strange standard to apply. The Capitol insurrectionists were not intentionally trying to do harm to American democracy. They believed in their delusions about election fraud and thought they were saving America. The groomers and mutilators aren’t trying to intentionally do harm. They believe they’re helping the poor sods who come to them for treatment.
The harm comes when people get swept up in a counterfactual ideology and act in ways that cause damage because reality is at odds with their beliefs. That is just as true for “people with qualifications”, and perhaps even more so, because educated people can spin fancier sophistries to let themselves be convinced of all sorts of nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:5
…said nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:3
A so you agree that people can have a body that is the wrong sex then.
I mean the brain is part of the body and we got a fairly common mutation (one every several hundred to one in a hundred) there that gets the brain to go the rest of this body is the wrong gender.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No one can know that they are the wrong sex because the only mind and body anyone has access to is their own. A man may wish he were a woman,0 or be deluded that he is a woman based on seeing other women, but in fact, he cannot know what it is like to be “a woman”, nor is there even such a thing, as feminists have been fighting for forever.
To the extent that all women share something in common, it is through the elements of their physical bodies, and a man will never have those experiences.
Re: Re: Re:3
False.
Re: Re: Re:
Do we really have to hit you with the DSMV over and over again, metaphorically speaking, to get you to FUCK OFF, Hyman?
No one is arguing abput largely decided on BIOLOGY, We’re talking about PSYCHOLOGY here.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hell, even the question of a person’s sex isn’t hard and fast, what with androgen insensitivity, karyotype variations and so on. But you don’t see someone’s chromosomes or even their penis on the streets. You see what they’re wearing and how they’ve gussied up and compare that to what you expect a person wearing those would be underneath. That’s why sex and gender are distinct.
I suspect a lot of anti-trans folk don’t want to accidentally associate with the “wrong” sex because the clothes threw them off, so it boils down to sexism. It’s all about sexual fixation with them. They think a trans woman is a man because of a penis. We know a trans woman is a woman because she would rather not have a penis define her.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The DSMV is a political document, with diseases entering and leaving based on social whims, and with the capture of professional organizations by activists.
I agree that gender dysphoria is a psychological illness. That’s why trans people should not be allowed to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, why public schools should not teach that men can be women or women, men, and why people should not be forced to affirm the trans delusion.
Re: Re: Re:3
I would bet money that you’re still upset because the DSM hasn’t referred to homosexuality as a mental disorder in decades.
And by the by: You still haven’t answered my question.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
On the contrary, the fact that the DSM once listed homosexuality as an illnesses is yet another sign of its political nature, just as Communist countries listed disbelief in their systems of government as mental disorders.
As to your question, of course every man’s death diminishes me, even when he thinks he’s a woman.
Re: Re: Re:5
I didn’t specify the gender of the trans person in my question. That you went out of your way to specify is further proof of your irrational, obsessive, and downright weird hatred of transgender people (including transgender children).
Go fuck yourself, Hyman.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I was just mocking you, just as I like to say that trans murderers should be locked up in a prison that matches the sex of their body.
Trans people kill themselves because they’re mentally ill, whether or not people affirm their delusions. But affirming delusions is always the wrong approach, because reality will constantly get in the way, demonstrating dissonance between beliefs and the real, physical world. People with the trans delusion should be treated so that they learn to live comfortably in the only body they will ever have, rather than trying to mutilate it into a semblance of what it can never be.
Re: Re: Re:7
You know what drives people to suicide, it people like you that keep on telling them how deluded they are, and who keep on trying to force them into a pigeon hole that they do not fit in.
There is a difference between accepting that people are who they are, and affirming their beliefs, learn it, and apply it to how you interact with other people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
People are who they are, not who they think they are. That applies to narcissists like Trump, and to men who think they’re women.
Delusional people constantly have their delusions invalidated by the real, physical world regardless of whether other people are willing to lie to them in support of their delusions. Men can never be women. If they devoutly wish to be women, or believe that they’re women, the real world will consistently demonstrate that this is not possible. It’s no surprise that such people might be driven to suicide from despair and frustration, but unfortunately for them, the world is not going to rearrange itself for their satisfaction. The only thing that will help them is to receive therapy that will teach them to be comfortable with the only body they will ever have.
Unfortunately, the woke takeover of psychology means that it is now forbidden to regard the trans delusion as an illness, which means that doctors who might have been willing to help these people are going to be afraid to do so, because such help will be regarded as “transphobic”. Instead, these patients will be led down the garden path of “acceptance”, leading to mutilation and even more despair.
Re: Re: Re:5
If anything should be considered a mental illness, it’s transphobia.
Obsession about random strangers’ genitals seems like exactly the kind of thing Freud would have studied.
Re: Re: Re:6 What
Balderdash, I’m sure there are totally reasonable and not at all sexual reasons for a person to spend more time thinking about the genitals of complete strangers(including children) than nymphomaniacs and/or porn producers ever do.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
The reason is that people are trying to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them.
Re: Re: Re:8
…said nobody not admitting to being on hallucinogens, ever.
Re: Re: Re:3
What, CHINA?
Or INSURANCE AGENCIES?
I am familiar with the criticisms of the DSMV, and I’m NOT sorry to say that those two parties are the ones influencing the DSNV, not YOUR chosen shitheels.
Then again, the Republicans will shill for China given the right incentives or threats…
Re: Re: Re:2 'If I admit that I'm wrong my entire argument collapses, so...'
It is difficult if not impossible to get a bigot to understand something when their entire ability to attack a person/group that they hate/obsess over is dependent upon their real or feigned lack of understanding of it.
Re: Re: Re:
Sir, this is a bus stop.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s actually a SweetGreen’s.
Re:
I don’t think the “large” was the part of that nonsense term that people had a problem with.
Although, let’s open this up – how is booking.com a “generic speech platform”?
Re: Re: the DSA is not just about speech.
While the stronger protection of minors and content moderation/disinformation parts of the DSA will probably not have a serious affect on booking.com there is more to the DSA.
For example booking.com now has to make clear why a user is being recommended certain flights, stays, car rentals and/or attractions if the user of the site wants to know. Then there is a more stringent ease of opt out requirement so that booking.com cannot use profiling to make those recommendations if the user does not want to.
Similarly VLOP sites must make it very clear what is an ad/promoted content and what isn’t. There are also more restrictions on how to target users in addition to the opt out requirements.
Though just by opening booking.com there don’t seem to be ads, at least on the front page so this one is likely moot.
The next one is fun. ToS that are not in legalese and in all the official national languages used in the EU.
Re: Re:
I kinda do.
Defining a service as “large” is automatically aribtrary. Any one statistic used to define “large” can be challenged by the existence of other statistics. For example: A site may have a significant number of accounts, but how many of them are active? If the active user count need to stay above a certain level for the service to count as “large”, how long must it stay that way? Who gets to decide what that level is in the first place, and how can we know they won’t use that decision to lash out against services (and possibly people) they dislike?
Digging into the rest of the phrase comes after we dig into “large”. As I’ve pointed out, trying to define that in the context of the Internet presents several issues. They won’t be solved by saying “[x] means ‘large’ because we say so, next problem plz”.
Re: Re: Re:
The government
Democratic checks and balances on government power.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your optimism is misplaced considering the type of person standing for office.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s not a normative statement, it’s a factual description of how legislstion works in modern liberal democracies.
Re: Re: Re:2
When you give a government power, you must remember: You’re also giving that power to people who might use that power with malicious intent. That alone should make you at least think twice about whether to give the government that power.
Re: Re: Re:3
If you have a government you don’t trust to define the terms of legislation and are unable to hold accountable, you’re past the point where your opinion on whether they should have a power matters.
Re: Re: Re:
“Defining a service as “large” is automatically aribtrary.”
Yes, but so is this fool’s constant claims that platforms should lose rights if they appeal to a wide audience.
I definitely have a problem with “large” being arbitrarily defined, but that’s not the issue this guy usually refers to. He’s usually just complaining that venues that tell him to GTFO are allowed to do so for the benefit of everyone else there.
That’s not surprising to me at all, most people I know will use that site, though obviously that’s anecdotal. I’ve never had a problem with them.
Google Shopping is the only one that’s surprising to me there, but I’d ponder whether it’s actually the shopping platform individually that’s being noted or whether it’s lumped in because of the search integration? I’m not sure.
I’m also wondering how Twitter’s recent woes would affect their inclusion here, but I suppose it is possible that they’ll use whatever excuses to get them on there.
I kind of wish they had listed “example.com” as one. Then we would at least have proof that this bit is mutually exclusive with sanity
Some of these or at least their app variant are bundled with cell phone installations that most owners will not know how to remove. How that may be relevant I don’t know having not read the law yet
There had been some discussion about whether or not Twitter would even qualify (to which one policy person told me that the EU would rewrite the rules until Twitter absolutely qualified, because they were clearly targeting the company).
Talk about saying the quiet part out loud and blowing any ‘this is about the public and based upon unbiased standards’ justification out of the water.
‘We don’t like these companies so they go on the list’ would be a lot more honest if that’s anything to go by since if they’re willing to do that with one company it doesn’t seem like a stretch to imagine they’d do it with others, something which undermines the whole process even if they might otherwise have had good reason to give extra attention to a given company.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Don't pretend you're not for government censorship
You love it when the FBI and CDC (and others) do it. To the point you’re willing to lie, extensively, about it.
It’s just that those guys were on “your side”, so you’ll defend them, no matter how illogical it is.
Re:
[Matthew dishonestly hallucinates facts not in evidence as always]