> so Meta is enforcing a broad ban to ensure they comply.

No. Meta enforces a broad ban because they don't want EU to regulate them, so they drag their feet and create the most possible "unwanted collateral damage" so people will get upset at the regulation instead of the company. So, pieces like this from The Guardian are surely needed.

▲

nottorp 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> create the most possible "unwanted collateral damage"

Other examples of this bullshit being cookie consent dialogs and Apple acting like a victim for being forced to open their platform a bit.

▲

tmp10423288442 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If cookie consent dialogs have been going on for as long as they have, can they really be called malicious compliance at this point? Seems like people believe that is the actual intent of the regulation at this point.

	▲	nottorp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Tell a lie enough times... I personally see fewer and fewer of those original dialogs that had you deny 20-30 items one by one. Most of the pages I land on have the deny all button or have given up on pretending they care.