This is ./, people don't RTFA, why would you think these peanut brains would take the time to read the directive then?

So, Rise was cancelled over ris(e)(ing) tensions?

The 737 MAX line should be grounded permanently and scrapped off completely. It has a design flaw (was never designed to have those engines on that body), it needed software with too much complex conditions to operate it correctly and it never did (not before, when you needed to buy the damn license for the safety measures, and not now with the new software, as the article states).

There comes a point when the regulators have to say enough and ban the damn plane from their skies, period. Not to mention that Boeing itself should have taken the initiative already, no sane person will ever want to fly a Boeing 737 MAX... heck, people are even wary of normal 737 and it has an outstanding safety record, that should tell Boeing to cut their losses and make the buck stop while they still have a name defend, or else their brand will be eroded completely (and flight companies wont buy their planes if they see costumers refusing to fly in them).

I know, because I'm not morally ambiguous: I would stand with the one, when it's the regime in China that's crooked. Simple. There's no hesitation on what to decide, the only ones who would have any difficulty or take time to decide are morally ambiguous people... to offend China in a matter such as this isn't really a moral dilemma, is it? Wouldn't be Blizzard preventing millions of Chinese gamers from being joyous with Blizzards games, it would be China regime preventing it. What the f is so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

Just cancel your subscription in WoW, even if for a month, or abstain from using their in-game stores for micro-transactions for equal amount of time or more.

Enough people do it and it will hurt them dearly. What they did is completely unacceptable and if not offset is setting a shameful precedent.

Read my replies again. I understand it's hard for ya, but you'll get there.

But regardless, thanks for this nugget of gold, bless you again, you're entertaining af.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

Oh... bless you.

Cry me a river. It's so entertaining to see you moaning now, playing the victim. Booh oooh me...

We're not the best people on earth and we know it, we are FULLY aware of it, that's why we have the European project: so we never forget our shortcomings, our most recent crimes and heinous crime, a civil war that encompassed the whole planet (two civil wars, actually). WE KNOW WE AREN'T THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH. The European project is to prevent us from turning against each other and instead intertwine our lives in a way that makes it close to impossible to ever even think about being on each other throats again. There's no bloodier region and history than the European, from Ancient to Contemporary history. And so we try to be better. You don't... half your voters went after a guy that had the slogan "make america great again", what else can I say that isn't damning to you?

Not quite true. They can appeal to higher instances (and I mean EU instances, where the playing field becomes leveled, no discrepancies between member-states).
Just last week Portugal (one of such countries with libel law leans more on the way of the accuser - more than just being lax) was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights on a libel case appeal where Portuguese justice ruled in favor of the plaintiff (a politician) against a Journalist and a Doctor. The Journalist and Doctor were exonerated and Portugal condemned to pay restitution ( ).

They would lose a lot of revenue, even if there were no other consequences. They don't set shop in a place on a whim, it has huge costs so the benefit of it has to outweigh not having a presence there, right? And it does, it could cut their revenue from anything from 1/2 to almost all.

And it wouldn't prove as unpopular as you may think, if it was blocked in the EU, you have to remember that as long as a ban has a rational explanation, for the most part we're ok with it... we have a long history of strong regulatory bodies (health, food, environment, automobile, kid toys safety, etc.) so we're used to having stuff banned and taken off the shelf, as long as it has a reasonable explanation and the process has full transparency. Not always, and not everywhere (i.e. UK, where spreading lies regarding the EU has been UK's Euro-skeptic political parties most popular way of engaging their electorate for the past 4 decades), but almost.

But I don't believe it would ever come to that, Facebook has too much to lose (by present day metrics - revenue, etc) to just close up shop and leave, it's far easier to comply.
Also, the potentially loss of close to a 1/4 revenue (about $3B to $4B quarterly) would put Zuck further in the crosshairs of the investors and shareholders who are already pushing for his removal (last annual shareholder meeting 2/3 of the shareholders voted to oust Zuck)... they don't have the shares to do it, but they do have the power to be a nuisance to Zuck and his managerial team (diverting his attention away from FB to have to deal with them... which already happens today and ever since Cambridge Analytica's scandal it has just worsen).

You're off by almost $3B... quarterly.

Don't believe in me, check their quarterly reports.

No corporation or country outside their borders has to do anything, Facebook operates in the EU and has offices and representation in the EU, so there... so while they operate and have representation in the EU, they abide.

Not so different from when the US decides, arbitrarily, to place some company on their "blacklist" and pretty much forces any other company that operates in the US or deals with US companies to stop dealing with that blacklisted company if they want to continue having business with US companies or in the US soil.

And FB can tell the EU to f*ck themselves, sure, and the EU can tell FB to kiss goodbye to 13 billion dollars in revenue (annual) from that market alone (and probably many billions more in frozen assets and accounts).

It's not, and any company operating in the EU has been aware of it for at least a decade now. Way before GDPR and whatnot, there were already laws in place for data contention, data protection, data rights, etc.

But for sure, it is a liability for anyone ill intended or wanting to cut corners.

The one thing companies need to be aware is that EU citizens are the owners of their own data, according to the law. Get an EXPLICIT consent, stating precisely what's the use, and you're fine, no liability whatsoever. Cut corners, try to use for something else than what was given consent to, and face the consequences.
I know that for some the concept of "private property" is murky nowadays, but "data" is the same as private property for the EU citizens. Their private property, not the corporations.

I work with data, and data is still worth gold (much more even) and completely outweighs the added steps one has to take to use the data lawfully. The only ones who are really screwed in this are the unlawful cases like Cambridge Analytica, those for sure will face a world of consequences that makes their actions a huge liability and the legal consequences outweigh the value they may take from it if caught.

Hey, look, Godwin's law!

Guess this can be considered a variation of the Godwin's law...

If you don't know the difference between those two, let me enlighten you:

- Right to be forgotten, you have to ask for something that you did in the past to be removed. You participated in it, just want to be forgotten, and it's triggered by the individual.

- This is about libel, defamation, etc.. triggered by a court order, it's not a decision on whim or due to some juvenile indiscretion that one wants to be forgotten, it's a pondered ruling from a court of justice.

Just because it's not shown in this side of the screen while on this geography doesn't mean the defamatory content isn't being shown. You can compare with a publication and say that one can't sue a newspaper if it, in the US, libels someone in the EU, and you'd be - technically, but not entirely - right. Problem is it isn't a newspaper in the US, it's a business in the EU, they'd just be hiding the libel and defamatory content but would still be doing it (regardless if it's them or just sits on their servers being shown publicly).

Sure, free speech and all that BS, and Facebook can always pack up and leave, not being subject to the member-states legislation, but I don't see that happening any time soon, considering EU is a huge market for Facebook (second only to the US+Canada in revenue). Doing that they would become that "newspaper" in the US that I was using on the prior paragraph, but until then...