cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27791056
European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against X, including a fine that could exceed $1 billion, according to a New York Times report yesterday.
The European Commission determined last year that Elon Musk’s social network violated the Digital Services Act. Regulators are now in the process of determining what punishment to impose.
“The penalties are set to include a fine and demands for product changes,” the NYT report said, attributing the information to “four people with knowledge of the plans.” The penalty is expected to be issued this summer and would be the first one under the new EU law.
“European authorities have been weighing how large a fine to issue X as they consider the risks of further antagonizing [President] Trump amid wider trans-Atlantic disputes over trade, tariffs and the war in Ukraine,” the NYT report said. “The fine could surpass $1 billion, one person said, as regulators seek to make an example of X to deter other companies from violating the law, the Digital Services Act.”
How is this is an example of (2), and not (1)? Is the law being applied inequally, or is it just that X is breakin it real bad?
Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Both could be happening at the same time.
But I didn’t even present them as mutually exclusive. Breaking the law is pretty much granted.
How is the law being applied inequally?
The following:
The motivation of the punishment is ulterior to the crime.
As the goal seems to be show of force, and not simply application of the law, it raises the question: why this company? And it creates a non-coded shadow system of (illegal or not) behaviour/people/companies that need to be made an example of, and (illegal or not) behaviour/people/companies that do not need to be made an example of.