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.
I thought the thumbnail was a pile of bratwurst sausages in the grass....
That's mostly just speculation and it needs someone to sue for it to become relevant 🤷
It's not only speculation, the whole argument is based on implications that this court ruling might in some cases contradict other court rulings and established law.
"... the ruling suggests much stronger responsibilities for social networking platforms, and the proactive monitoring and filtering of uploads is a difficult responsibility for most of the services that operate on the open procotols."
So this means basically nothing for now until the legal aspect is sorted out and laws explicitly defining the responsibilities of social media platforms are harmonised with this ruling (or not...).
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)