The App Store rule reads more like the platform itself needs the ability to block users, not the users on the platform. Which X has but they barely use it. I wonder when the german court system will punish X because they have ceased to follow the NetzDG (oversimplified: Ban users who violate the law) and there is no one on the platform to enforce NetzDG.
I think Elon is seriously considering withdrawing “X” from most international markets.
He’ll reduce X to USA/CAN (maybe UK/AUS) markets and see what he can achieve. Maybe expand later on. So he doesn’t have to bother with 190 jurisdictions on the planet trying to regulate his business.
It’s very vaguely worded. Maybe that’s on purpose. It seems like it might satisfy the requirement if the app / service can block a user, but users don’t have an option. But, if the context is that Apple has refused to allow the store to carry any app that didn’t allow its users to block other users, then the precedent is clear.
The Google one is also unclear. It talks about an in-app system for blocking UGC and users. That seems like it’s talking about preventing UGC from leaving the device, which makes it seem like the “blocking users” part might be more like being able to ban a user from using the app / service.
The App Store rule reads more like the platform itself needs the ability to block users, not the users on the platform. Which X has but they barely use it. I wonder when the german court system will punish X because they have ceased to follow the NetzDG (oversimplified: Ban users who violate the law) and there is no one on the platform to enforce NetzDG.
I think Elon is seriously considering withdrawing “X” from most international markets. He’ll reduce X to USA/CAN (maybe UK/AUS) markets and see what he can achieve. Maybe expand later on. So he doesn’t have to bother with 190 jurisdictions on the planet trying to regulate his business.
Twitter was already struggling with nearly unfettered access to every internet-connected user. (sans heavily censored countries)
If Musk cut off 25%-50% of users, the platform, which relies on eyeballs seeing advertisements, would certainly spiral into oblivion.
The Google Play Store rule seems like it’s about users though…
It’s very vaguely worded. Maybe that’s on purpose. It seems like it might satisfy the requirement if the app / service can block a user, but users don’t have an option. But, if the context is that Apple has refused to allow the store to carry any app that didn’t allow its users to block other users, then the precedent is clear.
The Google one is also unclear. It talks about an in-app system for blocking UGC and users. That seems like it’s talking about preventing UGC from leaving the device, which makes it seem like the “blocking users” part might be more like being able to ban a user from using the app / service.