Comment on Lemmy's Image Problem
Maalus@lemmy.world 8 months agoI have a better example. What if a small company made pills or medical devices. Do they get to be noncompliant with the EU law, and tell their patients “we won’t get a medical license, there is too few of us to do it”? If you aren’t okay with that, you aren’t okay with lemmy being noncompliant GDPR-wise
onlinepersona@programming.dev 8 months ago
Beautiful example of a commercial company selling products to customers 👍 My questions to you:
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Maalus@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Are lemmy admins handling EU information? Yes. Do they offer services? Yes. It doesn’t matter if free or not. Hosting a lemmy instance that allows EU users is therefore illegal.
onlinepersona@programming.dev 8 months ago
Ah, I see. You’re answering your own questions with the answers you like. Do you even need me to agree with yourself?
Let me guess: “no”.
If you want to read your opinion typed by somebody else, I suggest you get a secretary. I’m not here to indulge in your fantasy.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Of course the Lemmy devs aren’t liable for GDPR violations; the admins are. That doesn’t eliminate the problem, though: if the Lemmy devs wish to see their software used as it is now in the long term, they need to introduce GDPR compliance tools. We should consider it gravely concerning that bad actors (e.g., a Reddit employee) can set up Lemmy admins for a massive GDPR suit at any moment.
Maalus@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Ah, so now that it is really plainly explained and you have no arguments (since you never did) you start complaining and poisoning the discussion. Good job.