Had to click because of the thumbnail, it looks disgusting and creepy

So...

Some troll put together a fake ad, put it on a ad-sharing site saying someone was a prostitute, and the site took down the ad about an hour after the someone complained. But in that hour some other trolls copied the ad elsewhere, and so the someone sued saying the ad-sharing site should have stopped the other trolls.

The upset someone sued in file-sharing site in Romania, and rather than getting laughed out of court like a NFT dork complaining about right-clicking they got a favorable ruling, and now both halves of the fediverse are unlawful in the EU.

This is just FUD. The ruling has nothing to do with federation, and there is no reason why GDPR would prevent content sharing when the user has explicitly agreed to their posts being shared with other servers.

The US legal system is precedent based. Is EU law also precedent based? I don't think so. In other words, while still being a precedent, this ruling doesn't have quite the same power as it would have in a predent-based legal system.

So they just killed federated social media? Or am I misreading this whole thing? Sounds to me like they killed it.

This is why my idea of federation should move to service discovery. A federation would then be just a node that can points to other node serving similar service/protocol and keep their data separate. No need to copy data between server. Authentication can then be done via oAuth. This also means federation would need to be a 2-way street. Server admin would both have to allow CORS from every domain they federated with and trust the others oAuth secret/public key

The wording is pretty wild to me:

is required to implement appropriate technical and organisational security measures in order to prevent advertisements published there and containing sensitive data, in terms of Article 9(1) of that regulation, from being copied and unlawfully published on other websites.

Whatever can be accessed can be copied, there is nothing bar not publishing that can prevent it. Except if they call a pretty please in TOS an appropriate measure

Doesn't the Digital Services Act address this? My laymen's interpretation of it is, it says you're not liable as a (covered) platform operator unless you've been made aware in some way and then not do anything about it?!

And we, in the Fediverse have moderation. We don't just federate content, we also federate the deletions and mod decisions. We mostly disconnect from unmoderated places after we've become aware of negative things going on there?!

Edit: I think now I get it. It's not about federating in content... It's about federating it out to other instances we don't control. And they might ignore our mod's decision and keep it.... Yeah, that sounds like an issue. And it's not just a legal issue. It's also bad for our users.