[boomlinde]

That it's going to be arbitrary is your own assessment. You said that "No one in charge of implementing this law is going to care whether some Mastodon server implements a special auth solution for Danish users or not, they are going to care that Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, etc. do so."

I responded by explaining why that wouldn't be a good thing.

Have you changed your mind on that point or are you simply not keeping track of your argument? Either way there can't be an honest discussion whether you have the memory of a goldfish or are deliberately ignoring what you've said.

[simongray]

I am talking about the purpose of the law and the way it is written. It's not hard to create a law that only targets the bigger services, just make it apply to entities with a daily user count above N. A law isn't a headline on Hacker News, it's a carefully written document.

[boomlinde]

> I am talking about the purpose of the law and the way it is written. It's not hard to create a law that only targets the bigger services, just make it apply to entities with a daily user count above N.

Why would they, though, if "no one in charge of implementing this law is going to care whether some Mastodon server implements a special auth solution for Danish users or not"? The EU CSAR proposal (which Denmark seem very much on board with) doesn't make such exceptions, so why should this law?

> A law isn't a headline on Hacker News, it's a carefully written document.

This is a non sequitur, and also pure speculation.