dotandgtfo

This is one of the goals of the digital services act.

> We regularly see legislation that is being rammed and rushed through in spite of vocal opposition.

This implies that regulation is codified. The clear pattern of EU digital regulation doomerism is generally pointing at shitty proposals which aren't approved and codified in law.

Digital omnibus is another proposal.

If "rammed and rushed laws" is legitimately a widespread issue, you should be able to find a good example of something codified which is not just a proposal?

I'm not saying we don't have to fight. But vocal opposition to proposals which ultimately don't make it into law is the system working exactly as intended.

They're proposals by a minority. I'd like to see it go to see chat control go to grave permanently, but I'd also rather not that the democratic system allows for the permanent barring an impossible to define class of proposals from even being proposed. Or do you have other solutions?

What examples of this do you have in recent years (post 2016)? The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.

Considering the absolute deluge of politicians and celebrities allegedly promoting financial scams on norwegian Facebook my hunch is absolutely not.

I've always found it confusing how run of the mill SaaS trades at multiples assuming decades of doing business. The amount of change in software businesses has been massive and being able to run a successful software business even for 15 years from 2010-2025 requires a great deal of strategy and foresight and more likely than not that's not enough. Considering how these dynamics have been accelerating as technology accelerates it just seemed so off that the market was landing on a 20-30x multiples for software businesses that don't have much moat (e.g. swathes of B2B CRUD apps).

This clearly has the goal of muddying the water of the DSA transparency requirements. It's an opaque way of trying to mislead users into believing that X is being transparent while not being so at all.

They pretend to be transparent about their algorithms while denying researchers access to their API through exorbitant pricing and severely limited quotas.

There's a clear winner of surveillance in the set of the US government, US companies, and the EU government and EU companies.

Not only is the EU miles behind the US, the US is accelerating faster towards more surveillance. Historically PRISM and the US Cloud act. More recently DOGE's recent actions in centralising data and a new crop of private enterprises working on surveillance tech like CCTV facial recognition.

I don't see the federal government applying any breaks on this development. However, I note some states are. But we do see clear attempts from the EU attempt to attempt to curb this. E.g. parts of the AI Act.

While I'm not enjoying the development certain factions are pushing through in the EU either, it is hyperbole to say that the EU is attempting to make a surveillance state, especially in this context.

Really abhorrent how the current US government is spinning this into their tried and true "free speech" crusade despite it being mostly irrelevant. The DSA's core goal is transparency, shown clearly in the X ruling.

> The ‘blue checks’ charge is about consumer deception. X changed the rules about how it does verification in a way that allowed impersonation and scams to flourish. [...] As the Commission put it, the DSA “clearly prohibits online platforms from falsely claiming that users have been verified, when no such verification took place.”

> The ‘ads transparency’ charge stems from the DSA’s requirement that platforms must maintain a public archive showing what ads the platform ran, who paid for them, and other information. X fell drastically short of meeting this requirement

> The third thing the EU penalized X for is not giving researchers better access to public data. This enforcement is not about the DSA’s more famous and controversial requirement for platforms to hand over internal data. It’s just about information that was already publicly available on X’s site and app.

It's clear why the tech monopolies want to keep their secrets in the dark. There is a democratic consensus that what they're pulling either is illegal - or should be illegal. E.g. Scam advertisements, overt editorial practices by selective (de)amplification and/or monetization and looking the other way about bots and third-parties leveraging their systems for spreading political propaganda.

Transparency is their enemy. Free speech is their irrelevant but emotion-laden argument. Europeans see straight through it - the questions is, do the Americans?

That's a marketing role, not a product role.

Thanks, looks interesting. I may play around with it.

I think what happened was that I landed on your page. Read the landing page, which only contained code. Scrolled to the top and clicked "install in minutes" and was unexpectedly redirected down the page. Then I clicked into github and didn't click on the forms/tables hyperlinks there.

I think what I'm saying is primarily that I'm lazy.

Secondly, your landing page is too code oriented and does not show off any UI and your anchor link (which typically links into documentation) short-circuited my search for a docs page.

I think you would have gotten considerably more upvotes on this post if you show the product off more on the landing page. Despite the obvious lack of effort I put into learning your product, most people who clicked on this link today did even less.

No shade or anything. Again, the product looks nice now that I've seen it in the docs.

Please add more examples or a demo page or something. The gif and picture in the github repo is the single most descriptive part of your documentation, but a gif is terrible UX and a picture doesn't show off interactivity. This should be front and center on your landing page.

This may be useful for me, but I'm not going to bother setting up a test Django environment to test this just to find out that it isn't what I expected.

What a horrible take. I feel compelled to say that in my experience people in northern Europe can empathize with and separate the population from a dysfunctional two-party political system captured by capital.