I’d like to nominate the early 2010's VW EA888. The 2.0 TFSI in my 2011 Audi consumed about 1 qt of oil per 500 mi. Great customer service though, Audi USA paid for a piston+rods+gasket rebuild that didn’t fully fix the issue so they did a full engine swap.  

As with all things Elon and Tesla related, the product would be OK if not for the unrealistic/unreasonable hype from Musk and the marketing team.

Just read the article and came here to say the same thing. This isn’t spying, this is pretty standard data audit/compliance monitoring stuff. Look at the powers the FTC has over Facebook’s data terms and that the European Commission has over Google’s use of FitBit data. Lot’s more “spying” in each of those than this…

Some dubious “research” underpinning this story:

It’s not just privacy requirements around user data that prevent this app from being rolled out in the EU, it’s built on top of Instagram and integrates with Instagram accounts which is now prohibited in Europe.

For me it’s got to be the Ford Escape. They were everywhere in my suburban New England town and foretold the coming crossover apocalypse that consumed us all over the next two decades.

That which is dead can never die!

You can expect to see lots more of these “Not Available in EU” apps and services in the near future. The Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act are too vague and onerous for companies to bring new, unproven applications to the EU. They’ll adapt their existing cash cows, sure, but new products that need to show a…

Yeah. If Jack was just supporting RFK Jr. for dumb reasons, it would be forgivable, but RFK Jr. is a full-on attempt to create a “MAGA Jill Stein” to get Trump back into the White House.

It’s not just vague privacy principles keeping this app out of the EU. The Digital Markets Act would prevent Meta from requiring an Instagram account for Threads and wouldn’t let Meta share data between Threads and Instagram (e.g. to let advertisers target you on Threads based on what you liked on Instagram).

It actually does. Read the text of the law. Reproducing ANY PORTION of the news content, including the title of the article or lead sentence (which is what Facebook currently shows) requires paying the publisher. Similarly, just allowing users to post a link which “facilitates access to the content” on the publisher’s…

Sure. But the ads aren’t associated with specific content, they are distributed all over Facebook/Instagram, so how can you say that a news publisher is entitled to $/per post, but the person who created a hilarious cat video doesn’t get a single pence.

Stop posting that this only applies when Facebook posts the content of the article. Literally anything from the title of the article, first line of text, or link to the publisher’s website requires Facebook pay the publisher:

Good news....Crazy Larry can still post news on Facebook because he’s not a registered news publisher, but you can’t counter his conspiracy theory nonsense with credible news sources because of this law/Facebook’s response. This is a disaster from a misinformation standpoint.

You’re describing a thumbnail...it posts a photo and the first few lines of text so a person can determine if they want to click on the link. Otherwise you get nothing but “Shocking Titan Submarine Discovery....” headlines that link to Cialis ads and conspiracy blogs.

This law makes Facebook pay everytime a user posts a link to a news source. Those sites benefit when other users click on the link and are directed to the news publisher’s site (either through digital ads on their own site or pay wall/subscriptions).

No. This is literally about users posting links to news stories. If a Canadian user posts a link to an article from a Canadian “news publisher” (registration required), Facebook has to pay the publisher a negotiated per-post fee.

An academic colleague of mine was supporting this law (and the UK/Australian laws its based on) as being about Publishers getting a “fair share” of revenue from Facebook. The flaw in that argument is that (1) Facebook makes money on ads, not content that people share, and (2) Facebook doesn’t choose which content to…

It’s only going to apply to professional news sources. So your crazy uncle can post those insane conspiracy theories, but you can’t post a properly sourced and verified Washington Post or NYT article rebutting him.

All the people posting the same “Oh noes....news on FB bad” hot take completely miss the point.