[troupo]

> when the EU makes an arbitrary decision on whether your service is now a "Core Platform Service".

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?

[quitit]

I'm not going to engage a reply when your responses are how you personally feel projected as facts. Particularly the comedy around the suggestion that a social network is a requirement (maybe you feel like you need one?)

Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.

[troupo]

> I'm not going to engage a reply when your responses are how you personally feel projected as facts.

Isn't it the exact same that you did?

> Particularly the comedy around the suggestion that a social network is a requirement

I never said it was a requirement. You could try and actually read what I wrote instead of imagining what I wrote.

> Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.

Again, you could try and read that information instead of imagining what this information is.

[quitit]

I make the distinction between what are my opinions. This is a feature of comprehension that you lack and it's why I don't engage in [your] bad faith arguments since it underlines that your objective is not to present facts or opinions for discussion but rather to convey that what you think and feel as factual information - when it is not and you've provided no evidence to suggest that it is.

I'm hope this makes it clear for you. Since I don't see any value in conversations where people can't stand behind their personal ideas.