The article is misleading, it’s not what the law says. The law specifically forbids the use of personally identifiable data (ie judges and clerks name) to conduct statistical analysis predictions.
This seems to be in line with the privacy laws that require prior consent to allow this kind of private data processing (by private I specifically mean related to identifiable individuals)
When judges are giving orders they are not acting as private individuals, but as officials of the state. They have no right to not be associated with the decisions they are making.
Think about politicians: "You have no right to use my personally identifiable data to accuse me of bribery!"
If you are acting officially on behalf of the state I have the moral right, whether the law says so or not, to scrutinize your decisions.
The government doesn't have the right to privacy. If you work for the government, people should have the right to know your name and what choices you made in an official capacity. France is practicing the opposite of transparency.
This is not what the law says. In France, judgements are anonymized before being published, however the name of the judges and their teams are kept.
The law says that the names of the judges cannot be used to predict or analyse decisions from a specific judge/court.
Although I can understand why it would be appealing to do so (eg to prove bias...), it could easily be misused to put judges under political pressure, or encourage court shopping by less ethical entities.
Also this seems in line with data privacy laws, where you must get prior consent in order to use personally identifiable data.
It has nothing to do with analysis of legal decisions in general.
EU is 500M people Saudi Arabia is 40M
Also, GDPR doesn’t ‘almost definitely violates the first amendment’, GDPR wasn’t passed by Congress. A GDPR-like rule might violate the first amendment if you allow a really extensive definition of speech, and even in such a setting there would be a lot of room to argue.
I don’t think it’s a valid comparison though because market sizes aren’t the same and because viewing GDPR as a free speech is far from obvious (it actually requires yogi master like bending abilities)
You could argue that anti hate speech laws in some European countries (eg France) are the same.
It’s also not necessarily correct that ‘you have to conforms to laws ... to do business in other countries’. Many trades treaties supersede local laws also, when there’s political will it’s perfectly possible to restrict what private businesses can do abroad (eg Iran).
My understanding is that these new policies apply to videos, not paid for ads.
Maybe these ads are actually an answer to these policies?
What I find disturbing is that you could watch the whole ad (in the Polish case) and never know who ran it as you're just provided with a hashtag at the end of it.
You should use HTML.parser and focus on the conversion to markdown.
The way you parse HTML in the convert function is very inefficient and can easily produce incorrect results with valid HTML (e.g. <p class="some>stuff">some text</p> )
