Someone once explained it to me.

Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.

What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don’t like. So they don’t mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.

And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.

I’d assume they’re danish actors based on the article

In Denmark, the “right of integrity means that even in cases where you are allowed to make use of a work, you are not allowed to change it or use it in a way or in a context that infringes the author’s literary or artistic reputation or uniqueness,” a resource for Danish researchers noted.

Infringes reputation is so sooo broad. It comes down to who does the judge like the most, no? Reddit mods will always be way down on the list, as the judicial inclined tend to be technologically illiterate.

Also, the reddit mod is not jailed. In most of europe “prison” sentences like this are conditional sentences.

commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws.

They’re not?

They’re listing 2 possibilities:

Status quo: the whole AI (and tech in general) remains foreign controlled.

EU makes a change in GDPR Law

Maybe you can add a third option, like: “Perhaps GDPR law isn’t the reason why AI and tech sector in EU is so non-existant”, and a constructive conversation could’ve been had.

Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?

Yes.

when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote

That’s sadly incorrect. You responded to an incorrect assumption made about the original comment.

Depending on 3rd parties is a pain in the ass

explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation

I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.

coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.

I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?

Sadly, my experience is the same

Good luck to them!

Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval.

Do some people’s brains really work like that? I prefer it when people simply describe a problem, instead of making it all tribal and mixing reality with opinion!

The quality of discourse on lemmy is fucking dire.

Amen. A large fraction of the people on lemmy lack empathy and the ability to consider other viewpoints in general. Very anti-social, close minded crowd.

DeepSeek is it’s own model, designed and trained from ground up. It’s a novel architecture even. Impressive work.

It’s not a ‘stolen from the US’ model.

There does appear to be something special going on in the EU in that we can’t seem to participate on a technological level since the 80s. Making the block industrially irrelevant, which has had grave geopolitical consequences already.

GDPR is a barrier for EU companies only

It’s the tradeoff that’s happening. Maybe you’ve alternative solutions?

Anything you don’t like can be called that.

I think the point is that the EU isn’t participating in the software industry, including AI, at all.

they are forced to use whatever OS their IT department provides.

It’s also the other way around: we have linux machines at work, controllers for specific devices. A lot of people don’t want to open a manual it seems. They just submit support tickets, angrily, as they can’t figure out that the menu is in a different place.

How is there any real difference to the end user?

For example many people can’t find their saved files anymore in windows, as it auto saves in some programs to onedrive. Yet some other programs can’t read from onedrive. That’s a real difference in usability. And ofcourse also in terms of invasion of privacy.

For example, my mother became unable to read her email, as outlook changed UI completely and unavoidably. Had she chosen to use better software that would not have happened. A real difference.

For example, when searching for a local program, microsoft now also serves ads in the search results. Many people fall for those ads, that also include scams. That’s a real problem you don’t have with better software.

The examples keep on going on. And the end users do complain about them, often. They pay so much money for a worse experience.

which will make no obvious difference to what they need to do.

It would make a whole lot of difference. But it’s like learning math, or basic finance indeed. Sooo useful, improves your life tremendously, yet most people can’t be bothered.

Tragedy of the commons.

People in large will keep using it because they’ve no clue what a computer is. They just recognise symbols and which order to click them.

The product keeps on getting worse.

People will get angry and look for political “solutions” to their own unwillingness to learn.

As a result all of networking and computing will be made worse, with lots of red tape, solidifying an oligarchy, penalizing the alternatives.

Just like how there were 1000s of car makers in the 20th century, but now only a handfull. Legislating cars to be shitty DRM-ed smartphones on wheels.

Decoration