There is no treaty. And the GDPR is not "law" in the US. You cannot sue a company for damages in the US like in the EU.
However, there is an executive order that allows you to file a complaint if you think your privacy rights have been violated.
You can find a good explainer here.
Incorrect.
The current data agreement between the US and EU is neither a law nor a treaty. It is an executive order, which means it did not pass through Congress and simply reflects the policy of the current administration. Like any other executive order, it could be ignored or overturned by a subsequent administration.
Furthermore, it does not mean "GDPR is actually the law in the US". It means that the current US administration will cooperate in enforcing certain privacy rights against US law enforcement and the intelligence community. It does not give EU citizens the same rights they have in the EU under the GDPR. For example, it does not allow private individuals to sue US companies for damages in US courts.
Spammers are one thing, but users should not be banned for repeatedly stating an opinion. After all, plenty of us have repeatedly said that /u/spez is an ass.
not with a bang, but a butthole
On the contrary, it's often both.
Right, that's my point. Suppose two communities on A and B form a "multi community."
I'm on C and it mutually defederates from A, but C remains federated with B.
I then engage in a comment chain with someone on B. You're on A. Do you just see half of our conversation?
More generally, a "community" presumes a group of people who can all mutually interact, like people all having a conversation in the same room. But a "multi community" in a federated structure breaks this assumption. It's like being in a room where everyone is talking on different group calls via their phone, and you may or may not be allowed to hear parts of the conversation.
/u/spez isn't trying to win a popularity contest, he is trying to maximize his $$$ from the upcoming IPO. Even if it succeeded in smearing protestors, a self-hack isn't going to help him there at all. In fact quite the opposite, since it saddles Reddit investors with more potential liabilities.
Ok, suppose there is a unified magazine. I post to it, now which instance hosts my post? Then my instance defederates from that of one of the two magazines, but not the other. Do I now see only half the posts? If I engage in a comment chain, will users on the instances that defederated from mine see a weird half-conversation?
I think there is a fundamental difference between centralized formats like Reddit and federated formats like this one. Trying to simulate one with the other will always be unsatisfactory. So if Melpomene and Facedeer really want to join forces, the best way is simply to close one community and let them comoderate the remaining one.
And what happens when both pay their bills, and a comment or user is moderated by Melpomene but not Facedeer?
I think you should question your assumptions.
If it's true that a bigger community is always preferable to a smaller one, then everyone will always sign up for the biggest community or migrate there. In that case, there is no need to worry about the existence of smaller communities.
On the other hand, it's possible that some people are trying to avoid big communities. They have their own problems, for example the futility of posting in a Reddit thread which already has 1k+ comments. And in fact, people already form splinter groups on Reddit itself so presumably they have some value.
But if it's true that small groups are valuable too, then we should not be forcibly aggregating them into a mega group where they will lose the advantages of their small size.
They don't survey 10000 people in one town. They try to get a randomly chosen sample of 10000 people, or even 1000 people, across the entire United States.
If the entire United States is 50% men and 50% women, then a randomly chosen sample of 10000 will likely contain no more than 5100 men and no more than 5100 women. A sample of 1000 will likely contain no more than 530 men and no more than 530 women.
Now replace "men" and "women" with "Democrat" and "Republican", or any other demographic. That's how you end up with a group of people that reasonably represents the entire United States.
This article does talk about "When a Harvard poll meets Fox News", but it's criticizing Fox News's distortion of a Harris poll, not the poll itself (i.e., "How Fox News and conservative media outlets are using a recent Harvard Poll to support their own election narrative.")
And Penn is actually the one complaining about those who "cherry pick to advance agendas". He specifically objected to Fox cherry picking his poll to say that voters prefer a "law and order" candidate like Trump.
Mark J. Penn ’76, a visiting lecturer at Harvard University and leading pollster for the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, explains that Fox News’s claim that poll results reflected a positive response to “law and order” messaging “is not the full context of the story.” “Look, articles like this take things out of context,” he continues. “They’re written to make a political point. That’s not the whole picture.”
Penn, a former Crimson news editor, believes that the correct analysis of the poll is that “BLM and the police, frankly, have much better images than” both Biden and Trump. The poll finds that 67 percent of respondents view the police either favorably or very favorably, and 51 percent of respondents view Black Lives Matter favorably or very favorably. In comparison, 44 percent and 48 percent of respondents had a favorable or somewhat favorable view of Trump and Biden, respectively.
“I didn’t cooperate with that article,” Penn says when asked about his thoughts on the Fox News story. “It’s unfortunate that people cherry pick [the poll] and use it to advance agendas.
That agreement concerns use of EU data by the US government itself (ie the intelligence community and law enforcement).
It does not give EU citizens any opportunity to enforce claims against US companies in US courts.