That is exactly the authoritative mindset that is making these laws and judging them (i.e. judges). You don't say, oh, he's jay-walking again, the only way he'll learn, is if we cut off his legs!!

No, because, realistically, jaywalking is not a serious problem (it's not even an offence in some places). However, this sort of thing _is_ a serious problem.

You're trying to peddle a common logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. And you've been called out on it.

What would you propose?

TikTok is a massive corporation. They were either negligent or purposefully broke the law.

You don't have to do anything if they change, and they did. Written and formal notification to change their policy. Then if it still happens one small fine of IDK 100,000 EUR would be enough.

This is a false analogy. Corporations are not people, corporations have massive legal teams to go through every single piece of legislation that might affect them, if they break the law you should consider it's willingly given their resources.

They break the law once, get a small fine, they break it again and the fine increases, and keeps increasing until they follow the laws. What is the other option? You can't jail a corporation.

It is a perfect analogy. These fines are unreal - these are not small fines.

This company changed it and stopped it, and they still imposed a 2.5% revenue fine for a first offense!!

Yes, not being small fines is the whole point. If this was a 5 Million Euro fine, TikTok wouldn't care at all and factor it into their cost of doing business.

Large companies have repeatedly shown that they don't care about small fine. As were speaking Meta is paying to the tune of 100k a day in Norway. Meta knew this was an ongoing issue because the Irish DPC has ruled against them in December, yet they did nothing.

> Large companies have repeatedly shown that they don't care about small fine. As were speaking Meta is paying to the tune of 100k a day in Norway. Meta knew this was an ongoing issue because the Irish DPC has ruled against them in December, yet they did nothing.

One case doesn't mirror the entirety of all of them. Also, that Meta case I'm pretty sure was about something else completely that is questionable in its own right if it should be enforced!

> This company changed it and stopped it, and they still imposed a 2.5% revenue fine for a first offense!!

Knowingly an offense at the time they did it. The company was aware of GDPR, was aware of the consequences of breaking it and still decided to break the law, a large fine is a pretty good and fair punishment given the egregious behaviour.

Are you really defending that just because it was a first time offense a slap on the wrist would be ok to a massive corporation? It's a rules-based system, where the law matters, and the law is to apply a proportional fine to the infringement, no special treatment. I won't be sorry for TikTok, it's criminal behaviour.

TikTok knowingly allowed children to get their personal data harvested against the law, they deserve the punishment.