The only party actually following the ceasefire is the Palestinians as usual.
There's a ceasefire in Syria and Lebanon, but apparently for Israel a ceasefire means they can still attack you, you just can't defend yourself.
Did you read the article? The agreement stipulates that all bodies should be returned. The bodies have not been returned, and therefore the ceasefire cannot proceed to the next phase. Simple stuff.
I'm sorry but there's no way you can call xmpp modern messaging.
Matrix with all of its shortcomings looks like 2050 compared to xmpp.
Xmpp doesn't even have any half-decent mobile client!
The conversation around tiktok is so politicized and biased to the point I just can't take such results seriously.
If this was Instagram nobody would care.
> Global Witness, a climate organisation whose remit includes investigating big tech’s impact on human rights, said it conducted two batches of tests, with one set before the implementation of child protection rules under the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) on 25 July and another after.
Also why the hell is a human rights / climate org doing research on tiktok?
Yes, people would care. People who have been ringing the alarm bell regarding kids on social media for literally decades now.
Congress wouldn't care. Mark would make $ure of that...$omehow, but I can't quite figure out exactly what he would do. $omething $omething "campaign donation$".
It’s an intentional slap on the wrist because they don’t actually want to fine them, they just want them to change their behaviour. The general MO of European courts is to get people to comply, not to punish non compliance. There’s a subtle difference. If Meta change their tact in the next two weeks then they got what they wanted. If they don’t, fine increases and they’ll escalate responses.
Some useful context here is that the Netherlands is holding a general election on 29 October, which is why the deadline of two weeks was imposed. If Meta does not comply with the two weeks deadline and instead pays the (tiny) $5 million fine, that could have serious consequences for the democratic process in the Netherlands. Escalating after two weeks might be too little, too late.
That’s actually really interesting to know. I don’t think it would have serious implications if they chose to pay, but I do think it will be catastrophic if meta refuse to change and NL don’t escalate to the point of forcing compliance.
This is 5 million for this particular court case. Nothing is preventing others from filing their own, very similar cases. If Meta ignores the court's decision, a second lawsuit may end much worse for them.
Though, practically speaking, America has been threatening to make the trade war they started much worse for the EU if it tried to enforce things like DSA and GDPR fines. We'll have to see how enforceable these laws really are.
The US wouldn't be doing this if these American tech companies weren't lobbying the government hard to kill the DSA & GDPR. It seems like all regulatory enforcement is out of the window with this administration, so if they can kill the European regulations, they're free to do as they like. The scoping of the trade war as the US having a deficit with all countries by not counting services is ridiculous, it's the most important sector of the economy, and the US has a massive surplus in services.
Ding ding ding! If the EU had even the tiniest of balls, they would've accepted the US tariffs with open arms while applying equivalent ones on services at the same time. Glazing Trump during the announcement about how great of an idea it is to institute these things, how much fairer they make it.
Na, but under the Dutch legal you can go back to the court if they pay the 5 million without changing anything and ask if they can increase it cus it clearly wasn’t enough. They’ll just keep tacking zeroes on.
Yes and no. The judge can choose to tack on zeroes to make Meta comply, but they may also find that monetary fines are not sufficient and take other measures. This is not just a money printing machine you can keep coming back to.
If Meta can provide a reasonable time frame for compliance, the judge may also choose to let the existing limit on reparations stand rather than increase it, despite them not complying the day they hit the 5 million euro mark.
It's all up to what the judge deems reasonable to make Meta comply with the court's orders.
> 5.3. orders Meta Ireland to pay BoE a penalty of €100,000.00 for each day or part thereof that it does not, or does not fully, comply with the orders under 5.1 and/or 5.2, up to a maximum total of €5,000,000.00.
Original:
> 5.3. veroordeelt Meta Ierland om aan BoE een dangsom te betalen van € 100.000.00 oor iedere dag of gedeelte daarvan dat zij niet of niet volledig aan de beelen onder 5.1 en/of 5.2 oldoet. tot een maximum an in totaal € 5.000.000.00 is bereikt.
It seems like usually they start with smaller fines, and if the offense is repeated, they ramp it up. Kind of makes sense.
> but generally speaking I'd like to see allocating jailtime across the top shareholders as an option.
Shareholders don’t control day to day operations of a company. Top shareholders rarely have enough shares by themselves to control anything about the company. Remember the VW emissions cheating scandal where people were jailed? It would be completely unreasonable to jail top shareholders because some manager somewhere concocted a scheme to cheat on emissions.
Jailing top shareholders for decisions made by the company would be a weird misdirected use of the justice system. If someone is to be jailed, it should be people responsible for the decision.
That said, I can’t believe anyone would be watching the news about the current U.S. administration threatening companies with spurious and often nonsensical demands and think that we should be normalizing the process of letting the government jail individuals if the company does something the government doesn’t like that would have previously been a small fine. You can’t think of any way this power might be abused by elected officials?
The only sense in which punishment of any kind is reasonable is when it works to disincentivise harmful behavior. If higher risks for shareholders convince them to take a more active role in ensuring that their investment isn't causing harm to the rest of us, then they're at least as reasonable than any other sort of punishment.
If the cheating had gone unnoticed, the shareholders would've been rewarded, so they should bear some risk whether or not they sold after the crime was committed.
As it is, we've got incentives set up to encourage investment in bad behavior so long as you get out before your people get caught.
As for the government abusing the justice system... What rules would create justice is sort of orthogonal to the circumstances under which the rules are broken.
There was a thread recently about sanctions, and how if you break that, executives can actually go to jail.
It is obviously known how to get corporations to comply, and the mechanism is used when governments really want to. In this case and others like it, probably they don't care enough.
Amnesty and The International Association of Genocide Scholars both called it a genocide.
The Un has announced that it's a human made famine.
And the ICJ put an arrest Warren against the occupations leader.
But many Israel supporters live in a reality distortion field where they're eternal victims and therefore can do no wrong. No amount of well documented war crimes or obvious lies from the Israeli government will make a dent, because Palestinian lives have exactly zero value to them.
Honestly, they could be. Have you read those sources? Here's something I found from Amnesty International.
6.1.1 DIRECT ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS OR INDISCRIMINATE ATTACKS
It lists 15 cases of air strikes which it uses to support its claim of killing/harming members of a group which is part of the definition of genocide. However, all/nearly all of them say "Amnesty International did not find any evidence of a military objective.". So it seems possible Amnesty just doesn't know the secret military information and Israel didn't disclose it to them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you believe there can't possibly have been any military objectives that make those air strikes legitimate?
If a state attacks, just for example, civilian hospitals (which typically do not contain valid military targets) then, in my view, the burden of proof lies on the attacking state.
Leaving aside, of course, the fact that attacking a civilian hospital, even one that has some military targets in it (say wounded combatants), would also certainly mean killing or injuring many invalid targets, and at that point you should really provide not just evidence of a military target but also evidence that you couldn't attack the target in any other way and that the target is valuable enough to justify the deaths of innocent people.
Which Israel has not done, and really, can't do. Because there really aren't many targets worth bombing a hospital for.
Well yea if there was a trial. But now it's just a trial by media and guilty until proven innocent. That's not a good way to reach the correct conclusion.
Hamas had bases in hospitals. Not just wounded fighters being treated. They stored weapons and housed fighters in them. They also built underground bases directly underneath hospital buildings. They specifically chose hospitals because they thought that would protect them from being attacked but it does make those hospitals a legitimate target.
Do you mean the claim that there was a command center under al-Shifa hospital? That was debunked over 18 months ago by multiple sources.
None of the attacks on hospitals have been justifiable under the Geneva Conventions.
> So it seems possible Amnesty just doesn't know the secret military information and Israel didn't disclose it to them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you believe there can't possibly have been any military objectives that make those air strikes legitimate?
We don't know for sure that Hind Rajab wasn't planning attacks when she was supposed to be learning the alphabet either.
Maybe she was leading a Hamas cell with a crayon, but the intelligence is too crucial to share!
No killing one person is not genocide, it's a murder.
Killing 10,000's of women and children from a specific ethnic group, razing a significant percentage of buildings to the ground and forcibly displacing almost 2 million people while using starvation as a weapon of war, that's genocide.
This attitude is weird to see on Hacker News of all places, a forum that considers itself a quarantine zone from the rest of the world and the modern web, and which is also irrelevant to almost everyone, including much of tech.
reply