Google built its dominance by becoming the gateway to the web. The EU is increasingly saying that if you own the gate, you do not get to decide that your own businesses always go through first while everyone else waits outside. 🤷

Agreed.

At present, most probably only those that appear on the regulatory radar in their own right.

Inviting Dave Eggers to OpenAI HQ was basically booking a magician and handing him a flamethrower: Still, if your technology can survive a hostile keynote from a famous author, that is probably healthier than another room full of executives applauding a demo.

Probably. Regulators usually care about reach, not architecture. If the Fediverse became genuinely mainstream, it would likely end up in the same political spotlight. The real difference is that federation makes compliance an instance by instance problem, not one global switch. That is much harder to enforce.

Lucky you!

I‘ve been on identi.ca back in 2008. What about you? 🤷

Unlike you, I always speak openly under my own name. Unlike you, I don’t run an army of sock puppets. Unlike you, I’ve been active on the Web and Fediverse for decades. Unlike you, I’m not a block warden. Go and troll somewhere else. Bye! 👋

Paying a ransom doesn’t buy trust: It buys hope from people who have already proven they’re willing to extort you! If criminals learn that victims pay, asking for a second ransom isn’t a betrayal of the deal. It’s just the next logical business decision. 🤷

There probably is no magic solution: I would focus on making abuse expensive instead of making honest users miserable. Gradual trust, optional vouching, sensible rate limits, reputation, and behavioral signals together will outperform almost any CAPTCHA while keeping the door open for real newcomers.

If AI can already chain together credential theft, vulnerability discovery, and exploitation with minimal human input, model capability is no longer the only race that matters. Security, containment, and responsible deployment need to advance just as quickly, or they’ll become the weakest link.

Absolutely! 💯

Are you still hoping that he’ll learn at some point?

Both Washington and Beijing now treat AI less like software and more like oil or nuclear technology. Once that happens, export controls are almost inevitable. The real question is whether open weight AI make those controls increasingly irrelevant over time.

At least in this case, they actually know what they’re talking about. ✅

Funny how AI suddenly becomes sacred intellectual property only when someone else catches up. If the evidence is real, enforce the rules. If it is not, this risks looking less like protecting innovation and more like protecting market leaders from uncomfortable competition.

This is exactly the kind of AI competition users should want: more choice, more deployment options, and less vendor lock in. If European AI companies can scale without being swallowed by US tech giants, that’s good for customers, resilience, and the AI ecosystem as a whole.

Certainly for China. The US still seems to think it can achieve anything with this nonsense.

There really is no better way to obtain data. And it’s not just data that’s fed into the AI, but also strategies, methods and processes: ideally, these are incorporated directly into the software.