But what would be practical effects of DMA on AWS? Who is the customer, who is the vendor?
I’m not trying to be obtuse here. For Apple it’s obvious: They’re a “gatekeeper” between software and hardware makers and iPhone users. If you want to offer your software or hardware to those users, Apple has to let your products through the gate.
If I make SSDs that aren’t the ones Amazon uses, does Amazon have to make it possible for me to use their data centers to rent those SSDs to enterprise customers via EBS?
The goal here is to make sure these companies obey the law though, which big tech companies seem to think is optional.
No, this is a deterrent against anti-consumer behaviour, and it should be meaningful.
The US likes to flex it's muscle by pushing other governments around on behalf of its commercial interests.
I think it's well past time for Canada to either formally pursue toes with the EU or pursue alignment with EU consumer protection legislation.
Middle powers unite!
The EU should be careful with those kind of threats because in the world that is taking shape I can really imagine MS telling them one day that none of their Windows is gonna boot tomorrow if they don't calm down. The EU at large is totally dependent on those companies so who is really fearing who?
The final closure came in 2025: Ireland confirmed it received nearly €14.25 billion (about $15.5 billion) from the account’s final closure https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/07/15/apple-and-ireland...
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
All I see is more interoperability, fairer competition, more consumer rights, etc. If you are against this sort of regulation and a rational being, I envy you because you must either be oligarch-level rich, or in a happy bubble disconnected from world-affecting current events.
Democratically elected governments should have no say as to how many billions of dollars of market activity tech oligarchs are entitled to capture and redirect towards their very noble goal of winning the competition to see who can build the biggest yacht.
And, of course, building bunkers for when enough of the general population eventually catches onto and gets tired of the grift...
And it is absolutely the role of the government to regulate the market.
I can't tell if parent was being sarcastic.
"very noble goal of winning the competition to see who can build the biggest yacht."
The simps tend not to say the quiet part out loud
You can buy magic mushrooms semi legally in the Netherlands. Doesn't mean you won't get in trouble if you send them from the Netherlands to another country.
If you do do business with Iran, you have to follow Iranian law
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c624330lg1ko
Further suggested reading: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.284...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
If that is the case, I disagree with it. But if you serve the UK market, you gotta follow UK law. That doesn't seem unreasonable, does it?
I see you removed the VPN reference in your edit and it made your argument quite a bit weaker imo.
Just because 4Chan is in the US, doesn't mean they don't send their data to the UK.
As soon as they do, they are subject to UK law. Quite simple. If they don't want to be, they can stop sending their data there. See also the magic mushroom parallel from earlier.
> So tell me, how can one exist today and not "operate" in every country where internet exists
You could IP block by geo for example? Seems pretty straightforward.
I do work about following Thai law because I've been to Thailand, and hope to go again
I do work about following US law because the US has a history of pursuing US law breakers - people who have never even been to the US - beyond its borders
Or in another, more close parallel: You do in fact have to put a fence around your construction site so you're not liable if somebody walks there and hurts themselves.