[stingraycharles]

The same can be said about WhatsApp et al. I’m going to bet that Meta also indicated they don’t want other third party clients.

From my point of view, the advantages of opening up these platforms outweigh the disadvantages for those who don’t like that.

The whole idea of this type of regulation is that it tries to do what’s best for the consumer, and the market as a whole, not not necessarily for the businesses behind it.

[teekert]

And then we keep Moxie as a slave forcing him to get motivated to implement all this? Or will the government cease control of the code? Stop Moxie from Forking, then tell people to stay on the government branch?

And the arguments hold for Meta too if you ask me. WhatsApp is not a public service. It was not build (or in this case bought later on) with our interests at the top of the priority list. If we want public services with the public's interest at heart, we have to build those services, or sponsor those. Not take them from companies. In this case we already have a nice solution in the from of Matrix.

What are you suggesting?

[vhanda]

No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

Countries (and citizens by proxy) have a right to decide how they want services to function in their respective countries. Any company can choose to follow those regulations or voluntarily stop services within that country.

The great part about the EU is that it's a big enough market for companies to want to target it. One doesn't object about food health standards or what standards electronics parts are required to follow, it's the same for internet services.

[stale2002]

They don't have to be forced to do anything.

If these companies do not want to follow these laws, then they are within their right to not operate in the EU.

[teekert]

This proposes a very strict link between what is good for a society and the law. We should continue to debate decisions like this because what is good for society is very difficult to prove but the law has real repercussions, right now.

[stale2002]

The point being here, is that these companies do not "own" these citizens. Citizens have the right to vote. And they can vote on laws. And if companies want access to these markets, then they should follow these valid laws.

If you want to talk about the benefits and drawbacks of these laws, thats fine. But please do not phrase it as if these companies are being forced into slavery.

Because that is an absurd framing, because those citizens are fully within their right to set consumer protections, for what is required of companies, if they want access to certain markets.

Law makers, and everyone else, would love to talk about the benefits and cons, to consumers for these laws. Please enter the conversation, and actually talk about that, instead of pretending like these corporations have some moral right to access certain markets, above and beyond the wishes of those citizens who vote on valid consumer protections.

We are not "taking them from companies". Instead, citizens are putting up valid consumer protections and requirements for access to their market, that does not belong to these corporations.

And these corporations can decide to either follow these laws, or leave the market, because those markets do not belong to them.