Paul

@ikuturso@mastodon.social @sam@break3.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu your guess is correct. most of the DSA applies only to platforms >45 million monthly active users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act#Designation_of_VLOPs_and_VLOSEs So if the fediverse, including loops, actually stays federated, meaning not too many people use the same instance (or different instances run by the same operator), its structure makes it inherently exempt.

@sam@break3.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @ikuturso@mastodon.social I think adding all up would be hard to argue, because one instance operator doesn't have influence over the experience of other instances' users. (doesn't mean someone won't try and fail to make that argument at some point). I imagine the Commission would add up users if the same person or company runs multiple instances, which makes sense. Think: Meta opening multiple Threads instances, splitting the userbase & federating between them to avoid DSA rules.

@sam@break3.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @ikuturso@mastodon.social If it were clear to the userbase that they were on different instances, maybe ;-) Threads does federate with other ActivityPub services afaik. I followed some Threads accounts when it first opened. It's just de-facto unfederated now cause many large non-corporate instances have since blocked them. I understand why. Meta has unceremoniously scrapped open protocols before (Facebook messenger had XMPP when it first started). So their commitment is unreliable at best.