[Bluesky] is in breach of EU regulations for not disclosing key details about the group […] “All platforms in the EU . . . have to have a dedicated page on their website where it says how many users they have in the EU and where they are legally established,”
The commission cannot regulate Bluesky directly as it does not yet reach the threshold of more than 45mn monthly users in the EU to be designated a very large online platform.
So, basically: it isn’t there yet because it isn’t necessary yet.
…as suspicious as I am of Bluesky, the title of the article is kind of misleading.
Also in the article:
"
Regnier said the commission, the EU’s executive arm, had written to the 27 national governments to see “if they can find any trace of Bluesky” such as identifying a EU-based office. It has not yet contacted the company directly, he added.
"
Like this is so nonsensical. Talking to press about a company having broken a rule even though they are not under your jurisdiction, but you haven’t bothered to contact yet, is just wild.
If they reached out and said “Hey, before you reach these metrics you need to fulfill these requirements” and bluesky told them to pound sand, that’d be good to know.
But “Company who doesn’t have to follow a rule is not following the rule, and we’d like them to, but haven’t told them we’d like them to” is not news.
That’s not correct. The FT has not explained this clearly.
If an online platform has more than 45 million monthly users (~10% of EU population) then it is classified as a Very Large Online Platform. In that case, the Commission can directly make rules for it.
If it has fewer users, then it is still regulated by the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA claims jurisdiction over all platforms that have users in the EU. Among other things, they need to have a representative in the EU (IIUC). FWIW I’m pretty sure that lemmy is not compliant either.
So, basically: it isn’t there yet because it isn’t necessary yet.
…as suspicious as I am of Bluesky, the title of the article is kind of misleading.
Also in the article: " Regnier said the commission, the EU’s executive arm, had written to the 27 national governments to see “if they can find any trace of Bluesky” such as identifying a EU-based office. It has not yet contacted the company directly, he added. "
Like this is so nonsensical. Talking to press about a company having broken a rule even though they are not under your jurisdiction, but you haven’t bothered to contact yet, is just wild.
If they reached out and said “Hey, before you reach these metrics you need to fulfill these requirements” and bluesky told them to pound sand, that’d be good to know.
But “Company who doesn’t have to follow a rule is not following the rule, and we’d like them to, but haven’t told them we’d like them to” is not news.
I feel like this is easily solved by decentralization. if only bluesy was decentralized.
Bluesky is too busy RP-ing as federated to be actually federated.
Hey, if they get traction, it’s a start.
That’s not correct. The FT has not explained this clearly.
If an online platform has more than 45 million monthly users (~10% of EU population) then it is classified as a Very Large Online Platform. In that case, the Commission can directly make rules for it.
If it has fewer users, then it is still regulated by the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA claims jurisdiction over all platforms that have users in the EU. Among other things, they need to have a representative in the EU (IIUC). FWIW I’m pretty sure that lemmy is not compliant either.
DSA: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065&qid=1732567528372