oppress /əˈprɛs/ verb

    keep (someone) in subjection and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.

I can't agree that TikTok or other recipients of such fingers could yet be considered to be in "subjection and hardship". Nor would I consider the fines so far issued to be particularly unjust.

Large corporations are definitely being subject to *unjust* exercise of authority. "Hardship" on a corporation doesn't really apply at the scale of very large corporations because the "hardship" is spread out among the many, many shareholders and stakeholders of the successful company; of course, it's not to be seen - it's a relatively successfully company being attacked, in comparison to non-successful companies not being attacked, so hardship isn't to be seen - but the unjustment is still completely there.

The relevant regulatory authorities at national and European level decided that the company had breached the law of the land and applied the appropriate fine based on that law. Would you agree with that?

It's fair to take issue with the GDPR itself, or how e.g. the people working at the Irish DPC are selected or something like that. While I have sympathy for criticisms of the system, these are free democratic entities which rule by consent (rather that tyranny) and they're applying law that was written by a great many people across many legitimate institutions. That looks like "justice" to me, unless you feel it contravenes some natural law. If you think it does this, please explain the relevant principle under which you find the fine unjust.

So, protecting private data online, as little as the EU does, is oppression... Oppression of whom?

The laws are extremely vague. They're suddenly decried and enforced immediately without giving enough time for these companies to react. Penalties are beyond exorbitant. Judges are bias (see my comment above). This is authoritarian, this is destructive. Socialists laws of the EU is destroying business and society with authoritarianism and punishments.

The article states:

"It found that the “family pairing” scheme, which gives an adult control over a child’s account settings, did not check whether the adult “paired” with the child user was a parent or guardian."

Chapter 8, Article 1 of the GDPR[1] states:

"Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child."

This doesn't seem vague at all.

[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-8-gdpr/

Ok, in this one case, it's not that vague. But GDPR in general is extremely vague. Digital Markets Act, extremely vague.

I hope you are PR at TikTok, and not legal.

I have no relations with TikTok. I am in furious at the EU politicians, and laws in general in the West. I am pro-Western but the laws are ruining us.

GDPR generally only seems vague if you're trying to figure out exactly what you can get away with. The spirit of GDPR seems pretty easily explained.

The law is from 2018. And described exactly what was forbidden for underage children privacy. The fact that Ticktock didn't comply until 2021 is their own fault.

Small correction: GDPR was passed in May 2016, but only came into effect in Apr 2018, precisely so that companies had two years to make the necessary changes.

In other words, GDPR is literally older than TikTok by 3-4 months (initial release: September 2016).

In this case, perhaps, but this is a serious problem in the EU, in general. The EU is destroying business.

Interesting turn of phrase “oppressed corporations”

A lot of fun stuff to think about with that

The oppressor is the lawmaker, who has infinite power over the corporations. "oppressed corporations" is a phenomenon that can and does exist in this context.

One angle that makes it interesting is that the very existence of the corporation is determined by the decision of the lawmakers. The sovereign state is the full authority on that matter, and by its right, through the legal process, can change any aspect of it.

Can a sculptor oppress his sculpture?

This feels like musing about the nature of property- Like how many people think property is some sort of natural phenomenon, when it's actually a legal concept defined by the state.