Article suggestions: Difference between revisions

Line 130:

Companies like Apple comply with regulations such as those imposed by the EU by trying to follow the wording, but not the spirit of the legislation. For instance, there were early reports that Apple would support USB-C, but only with Apple certified devices and cables, allowing them to continue the lucrative "Made for iPhone" certification programme. They only backtracked when the EU indicated this would not be considered compliant with the USB-C mandate.

|<ref>{{Cite web |title=Malicious Compliance |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance |website=Wikipedia}}</ref>

|-

~~|Not applicable~~

~~|[[Financial censorship|Financial Censorship]]~~

This came up in the recent Valve controversies about removing Games because of pressure from payment providers. It is the concept that US payment providers have pretty much a monopoly world-wide and can thus control which content websites can publish and what goods they can sell because they can threaten to revoke their access to payments.

~~|<ref>{{Cite web |title=https://www.eff.org/issues/financial-censorship |url= |website=EFF}}</ref>~~

|-

|[[QIDI]]

Line 226:

Line 221:

|-

|N/A

|Patriot Act

|

|}

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 Companies like Apple comply with regulations such as those imposed by the EU by trying to follow the wording, but not the spirit of the legislation. For instance, there were early reports that Apple would support USB-C, but only with Apple certified devices and cables, allowing them to continue the lucrative "Made for iPhone" certification programme. They only backtracked when the EU indicated this would not be considered compliant with the USB-C mandate.
 |<ref>{{Cite web |title=Malicious Compliance |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance |website=Wikipedia}}</ref>
-|-
-|Not applicable
-|[[Financial censorship|Financial Censorship]]
-This came up in the recent Valve controversies about removing Games because of pressure from payment providers. It is the concept that US payment providers have pretty much a monopoly world-wide and can thus control which content websites can publish and what goods they can sell because they can threaten to revoke their access to payments.
-|<ref>{{Cite web |title=https://www.eff.org/issues/financial-censorship |url= |website=EFF}}</ref>
 |-
 |[[QIDI]]
@@ Line 226: / Line 221: @@
 |-
 |N/A
 |Patriot Act
 |
 |}