| Yes I see that, but that's the source of the problem, because one can sign up for non-DMA services which are based on using the personal data users provide to it to service advertising-based functionality. Since even a song recommendation or touring information falls into advertising marketing. This means the distinction between being a popular and legally running entity is when the EU makes an arbitrary decision on whether your service is now a "Core Platform Service". I see how this makes sense for services which can be deemed as an essential service such as obtaining apps for a device, news, and internet search, but I am cynical when it is applied to completely optional services such as "Social Networks", or "Video" platforms. Using such broad arbitrary categorisation "Music" platforms should also be included, I.E. Spotify, but we don't see that and the optics of that don't look good. I am not pro-tracking whatsoever, I think it is fair for a consumer to be able to opt out of site-to-site tracking (heck out-lawing that would be a better step) but this contradiction exists and it doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't actually look pro-consumer at all, and I have a problem when protectionist legislation is decorated in political marketing for "competition" and "consumer-welfare" wrapping paper, because it leads to two things: 1. Retaliatory legislation: Foreign legislators aren't stupid, they don't buy into that marketing. One can expect the notably absent Music services to be on reciprocal legislation from the USA. Globally this has the run on effect of patch-work inconsistencies in services across the globe - i.e. we're back to protectionism. 2. Vague laws stifle legitimate data-use functionality, but this only applies for services which the rule-maker arbitrarily chooses through specifically tailored criteria. I.E. It's a forced home-advantage to competitors who can use the data to provide new types of services. The vagueness of the laws need to be stamped out and applied to all providers equally: that would be a true consumer protection. Consumers need protection from everyone, not just big entities. |
It's not arbitrary.
> but I am cynical when it is applied to completely optional services such as "Social Networks", or "Video" platforms.
These social networks are no longer "optional", and form a huge part of people's lives. Just because they are not running nuclear reactors or sewage plants doesn't absolve them of responsibilities.
> I think it is fair for a consumer to be able to opt out of site-to-site tracking (heck out-lawing that would be a better step) but this contradiction exists and it doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't actually look pro-consumer at al
How is "we don't want Facebook to continue pervasive and invasive tracking of everyone across the entire internet" not prosumer?
Here's what Facbook says about its tracking in the various help and settings pages: https://mastodon.nu/@dmitriid/112180885099177982
How about "For example, if you buy a pair of shoes at your local shopping centre, you might later see an ad for more shoes from that same company or a similar company." Is this really prosumer? Or is this surveillance capitalism that even very few dystopias could imagine?
> i.e. we're back to protectionism.
Yes, EU is about protectionism, but not the one you're thinking about: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e...
> Vague laws stifle legitimate data-use functionality
Laws in general are vague because it's impossible to perfectly describe and encapsulate the entirety of human endeavours in any given field.
That said, there's very little that is vague about European laws curbing the unfettered unregulated unlimited-growth-at-all-costs US-brand of capitalism. For example, here's a look inside DMA: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act Note how different it is from the bullshit that US corporations spew about it and that gullible people buy into?