towerful

Twitter operates servers in the EU. They will have at least Frankfurt server. Probably UK and probably elsewhere.
It's geographically closer, so reduces latency and server load (faster to complete a request, faster to discard allocated resources).
It also gives redundancy. If Frankfurt DC explodes, the system will fall back to the next closest DC (probably London).

So let's say that the EU DC stops existing. And requests go over the ocean to the US.
Twitter still has customers in the EU. They are still making money from EU citizens. Because twitter isn't free. It costs money to manage, develop and run. Twitter tries to recoup those costs via adverts and subscription services.
So let's say that twitter is no longer allowed to extract money from the EU. The EU bans companies advertising on twitter.
Any companies that have business in the EU (like selling to EU citizens) are no longer allowed to advertise on twitter.
Paypal, visa etc is no longer allowed to take payments from EU citizens for twitter services.
Any EU service that has twitter integrations is no longer allowed to charge for twitter features.
Basically, twitter has no way of getting money from the EU.

Why would twitter spend money to access the EU population. It's a cost sink. Dead weight.
There is no growth. Getting 50 million new EU users means a massive cost increase.
Plus paying for that extra load on (say) US based servers, and their international backbone links. (Just because you can reach a server on the other side of the world for "free", doesn't mean commercial services can pump terabytes of data internationally for free).

So yeh, the servers could stay located in the US where twitter operations HQ is. Twitter could disband their international headquarters, so they no longer have companies in the EU.
But they wouldn't be able to get any money from EU citizens. And if they tried to circumvent the rules, then they can be blocked by DNS and BGP. So the only way to access twitter is by a VPN.
That didn't work well in Brazil, and twitter caved in to the demands of the Brazil government.

And it's fine to continue to operate in the US.
But if it doesn't abide by EU laws then it can't operate in the EU.

America doesn't set the worlds laws

Excel is great.
It does so much that people make it do what it shouldn't, and never think to explore technologies beyond it... Like a proper fucking database.
Then you get garbage business systems based on fragile excel sheets with bonkers macros and weird ETL pipelines to sync things.
And never try to deal with dates and timezones.

My phone case has a magnet in it (so it mildly sticks to metal surfaces).
I've put it on a laptop and accidentally triggered the "lid close" sensor

It's not difficult to define.
It's about people's choices.

People can choose to own a gun, choose to want to own a gun, choose to own a whole armoury.
I think owning a gun is stupid. I live in a country that successfully regulates guns.
Saying "I think gun owners are stupid" isn't hate speech because they have chosen to own a gun.
If I said "gun owners should use their guns in themselves" that becomes hate speech because it's wishing harm on them.

People choose to be Republicans, trumps choices in life are why he is where he is.
Hate trump because of what he does, not because he has blonde hair.

People don't choose to be gay, or be trans, or be Jewish, or be black, or be short or whatever.
Which is another way opinions can become hate speech.
If I said "I think gun owners are stupid" that isn't hate speech.
If I said "I think black people are stupid" that becomes hate speech because it is grouping people by something they have no control over.

Porn is performed by consenting adults and consumed by consenting adults.
That's why porn made from human trafficking, revenge porn (ie leaking nudes of an ex) etc are illegal in most sane countries.
The idea being that porn doesn't hurt anyone.

Hate speech is harmful. It's purpose is to hurt people.
So yeh, it should be illegal.
I have no issues discussing hate speech. I do have issues with hate speech being used.

But they provide the methods of uploading, deleting and viewing the contents of that storage to their end users.
So, it's Reddits storage.

It requires them to restrict certain categories of video, so that users cannot share content on cyberbullying, promoting eating disorders, promotion of self harm or incitement to hatred on a number of grounds.

Yeh, fuck censorship. Let's all be shitbags and do that stuff instead!

4 years ago (best number I can find, considering IAs blog pages are down) IA used about 50 petabytes on servers that have 250 terabytes of storage and 2gbps network.
From this, we can conclude that 1 TB of storage requires 8mbps of network speed.
Let's just say that average/all residential broadband has spare bandwidth for 8mbps symmetrical.
We would need 50,000 volunteers to cover the absolute minimum.
Probably 100k to 200k to have any sort of reliability, considering it's all residential networking and commodity hardware.

In the last 4 years, I imagine IA has increased their storage requirements significantly.
And all of that would need to be coordinated, so some shards don't get over-replicated

I forgot what I was trying to say there.
I think it's along the lines of "I'd rather we didn't need a ridiculous amount of new power, but at least it's being covered by non-carbon sources".

Your taxes already go towards this.
That's how governments leverage capitalism to placate the people. Grants for green energy initiatives.
Private companies get free money for taking some amount of risk because they are likely to profit massively from it.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/google-agrees-to-multi-reactor-power-deal-with-nuclear-startup-kairos
Kairos is getting free money (grants & tax breaks) and profits from this. Google is extremely likely (can't find a source) to be getting free money for this

Companies EXIST to extract profit.
Of one of the worlds most successful companies is doing this, it's because "line goes up".

I'd prefer this happend so that "humans survive".
But "humans don't die faster" is fine for now.

(I guess "humans" means "poor humans". As in anyone that doesn't outright own 2 homes.)

If only that was the government that invested in the R&D and tech to make it happen.
Gaining funds from taxes (meaningful taxes), and investing that money in making their country better.

Hopefully this decision is because carbon taxes that will make consumer products representative of the actual cost of the item (not the exploitative cost). >

No no, let the free market decide.
Fucking AI threatening to replace basic jobs (when it's more suited to replace the C-Suite) gobling up energy and money, too-big-to-fail bailouts and loophole tax rules bullshit.

So yeh, someone needs to spend the money and that should be the government.
Because they should realise that carbon fuel sources are a death sentence.