[crazygringo]

GDPR means absolutely nothing between an American customer and an American company. It's completely irrelevant.

And I'm not even sure it means anything even for users in the EU. If Twitter doesn't have any offices/subsidiaries/bank accounts in the EU, then even if the EU fined them, I'm not sure how that would ever be enforced?

[jedberg]

Twitter has an office in Ireland and is most definitely regulated under GDPR.

[crazygringo]

Is it still there? I knew they did previously, but last year there were reports it was possibly closing as part of Musk's layoffs.

Looking online I can't find any recent information.

Basically, given the way Musk has been ignoring other regulations and/or not paying for things, I'm wondering if he even cares about GDPR. And if he doesn't care and shuts down any legal European presence, then does it matter?

(Of course if the Ireland office is still active and receiving lots of European advertiser revenue, then of course the GDPR has teeth.)

[Erikun]

It's Twitter International Unlimited, headquartered in Ireland. Still operational it seems, https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Twitter-International...

[jedberg]

My friend works there, it's definitely still there.

[Alupis]

Perhaps not for long...

Shutting that office down and safely ignoring the GDPR is probably a valid concession for a US-based business built around data collection.

It's not like EU users will stop or be blocked from using X anyway.

[crazygringo]

Thanks! OK, GDPR should still have teeth then. Good to know.

[tiffanyg]

Musk only cares about "getting his way" at this point.

Years ago, "dark triad incarnate" was checked by lack of nearly as established a position* and a longer timeline over which to grow and consolidate wealth and power (which does require time and attention).

He's past 50 now, and started transitioning into his own "late Putin phase" (substitute your own 'favorite megalomaniac' at will) quite aggressively in the past 5 years (especially). Now the game is using that wealth and power for a kind of ultimate "spoiled child fantasy camp".

Regardless of how directly any of them channel the childishness of the archetype, the traits are always there - "I'm special", "your (parent-style) 'rules' don't apply to me"**, "I will get my way", etc. It's the whole point, and the motivation that people who don't think this way miss. The motivation that makes the behavior make at least some sense.

Musk is one of the real extreme examples in terms of how transparent the behavior is - whenever he does something that seems hard to explain, ask yourself how the situation might look "in a sandbox". Seriously. This may sound like typical rhetoric, but I'm serious: try it. Twitter is a perfect example - "if I can't have it my way, then I'll make sure no one can have it" ...

... and, just like in the analogy, there are layers of goals. I.e., it's also good if while we (may ultimately) destroy "the sandbox", we can use it to harm those we don't like who've been playing in it. Either directly (e.g., firing employees of Twitter), or in various indirect ways (reporting "troublesome users" to their authoritarian governments [when applicable], etc.).

* Specifically, still needing something from others here and there - most recently and likely the final example: funding for Twitter deal

** People who think this way can't help 'telegraphing' - it's one way they identify members of their own flock, in part. "Nanny state", "snowflake", etc.

"Snowflake" has got to be a personal favorite. Every time someone uses that one, I know I'm going to need a WHINE break after a few sentences... https://youtu.be/tl4VD8uvgec?si=H2MadAVDduLfolfS&t=1m17s