Lemmy's Image Problem (Updated 02-06-2024)
The popular Reddit alternative's user count has grown a lot over the past year. One problem, though: users and admins can't delete images.
Highlighting the recent report of users and admins being unable to delete images, and how Trust & Safety tooling is currently lacking.
GDPR article 3, and the EU-US Data Protection Umbrella Agreement concluded in the US in December 2016 which makes it US law disagree.
Lemmy instances offer services to me as an in-EU data subject, and that makes it subject under the very Article 3/2 (a) you linked.
the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union
Since there is federation, a US-based instance would still be a data processor if it IP blocked be as coming from the EU.
I did in fact read it.
Read the rest of it, instead of cherry picking shit. The instance needs to be collecting your data and selling it or making some sort of money off of it.
Where does it say that?
the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
Lemmy doesn't sell anything and it doesn't monitor you or collect pii.
Anything that someone's identity can be even indirectly inferred is PII. The GDPR explicitly defines usernames as online identifiers as PII.
The whole "irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required" bit is so that it applies to free services like Lemmy as well. Lemmy provides me with a free service. It even monitors me through federation, since it scrapes my username and comments from other instances without my affirmative and explicit consent. Using a service, no matter its nature, is not consent as required by the GDPR.
There is an explicit cutout for services you offer yourself or your household members. The reason it is there is that free services like Lemmy absolutely do qualify.
No it doesn't, and good luck finding a case where someone has been fined for hosting a free service that doesn't sell anything.
There are dozens of cases of fines issued to municipalities, and government offices that don't do business. France fined a parliamentary candidate. Italy has fined the Italian Archery Federation, an NGO. Germany fined a bunch of individual police officers and an employee of a Covid testing centre.
Please either start backing up your claim of some supposed nonprofit exception, or go sealioning somewhere else.
Cool, so no forum owners of foss...got it.
Nice moving the goalposts there. You said "not selling anything". I think police officers or the "Association for the prevention and study of crimes, abuses and negligence in information technology and advanced communications" don't sell stuff, they were fined nevertheless.
If I put a link to for example this case where a small social media provider got fined for nothing more than not handling data well, you could move the goalposts even further.
Or you could look at the countless cases brought against private individuals where they of course are not selling things. Austria fined a guy under GDPR for having a dashcam!
So again, you made a claim that there is an exception under GDPR for "forum owners of foss". Let's see evidence for that claim.
