I think there's a compelling case to be made for requiring large social media platforms to provide data access to researchers, considering the platform's incredible ability to influence elections and society at-large.
Auditors are hired by the company being audited, have a very narrow and fixed mission justified by previous financial blowups that caused a lot of concrete damage to specific people, and there are strict standards defining what they are looking for and how. Audits don't tend to suck up personal data of customers.
"Researchers" here means self-selecting academics going on arbitrary fishing expeditions with full access to everyone's data. It's not narrowly defined, not justified by prior unambiguous harm to anyone, and given the maxed out ideological bias in academia is clearly just setting up universities to be an ideological police force on the general public.
I chose to give my data to the company. I didn't choose to give it to some unrelated third party.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
That said, this is most likely a tit-for-tat by the EU against the Trump administration, because we live in a world where all countries (even the US) have now weaponized regulations for negotiating leverage.
Our red line in both the Biden admin as well as the current admin was the DSA. The EU's red line is not being included in any negotiation over the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. The US fights against the DSA by arguing about infringement on free speech. The EU then tries to fight back over market competition. And it goes on and on and on.
This is why a lot of businesses get antsy about trade wars.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
I think Twitter is already providing access to this data through paid APIs too, so this is effectively subsidizing researcher access.
How do people find so much to complain about?
And America is taxing Americans via tariffs to subsidize a corrupt executive branch lining its own pockets. At least Europe is looking out for a whole continent. Not just a handful of grifters.
Your reasoning is that taxation is always bad and the more you pay the worst, a very American view which I can understand given how badly US government spends money in this regard.
I agree. Good EU!
> Pre-empting the announcement on Thursday night, United States Vice President JD Vance that "the EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage."
Sorry, but your garbage has influence outside the US. Keep it to yourself or clean up.
Deception and fraud aren't even protected by the 1st Amendment, and the blue checkmark scheme being pay-to-win is definitely leaning that way, if not just straight up there. Seems the EU thought is just is.
And if you care so much about free speech, maybe you should be more open about those ads of yours?
His open stance and clear support or rebuke of various political figures and parties around the world is a clear indication of this.
Mind you, 120M USD is peanuts for Musk. If it were me, I'd just fine X 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 USD just because I want to retaliate against Trump's silliness. If you wanna play hardball, expect it back. But, but... freedom of bullshit. You can keep that, we can perfectly use freedom of speech on solid platforms instead.
> The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people
Define this type of action as "bureaucratic piracy". Any rule which preferentially targets US interests over domestic either in its creation or its enforcement. Apply some of that "disparate outcomes" logic.
