[JumpCrisscross]

> We don't need (and shouldn't want) bans at all. We need very strict criteria on what platforms can or cannot do, how they can or cannot operate

If you're unwilling to put a ban on the table, the law is toothless and will be flouted. Maybe not forever. But the EU's ability to enforce its will on American companies is already tentative at best.

[dkh]

I'm not saying it's not on the table. My example included platforms being seized or forced to shut down. It just shouldn't be our starting point or our goal.

It shouldn't be the only viable option because we have no other legal mechanism with which to regulate these platforms before they have become enormous and powerful and spiral out of control.

If it needs to be done, it should be done for the right reasons. (Not that a TikTok ban would be bad, or that it's not a sensible move geopolitically, but in the context of the discussion in this thread, a TikTok ban is definitely not on the table because we've agreed that society is harmed by addiction to a centralized social media platform, or whatever. Any side-effects in those areas as a result of the ban would just be collateral.)

I would just prefer a ban never needing to come into play because we don't let things get bad

[JumpCrisscross]

> I would just prefer a ban never needing to come into play because we don't let things get bad

You need to be ready to ban because you're playing against folks who are willing to play that card. If Brussells doesn't want a ban because it's unsure it would be popular, that constrains their ability to regulate these platforms. Because they know, based on the same logic, that they can cut the cord and blame it on the EU to force back anything they don't like.