[HN Gopher] Europe is in danger of regulating its tech market ou...
___________________________________________________________________
Europe is in danger of regulating its tech market out of existence
Author : paulpauper
Score : 126 points
Date : 2024-07-26 18:55 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (foreignpolicy.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (foreignpolicy.com)
| meiraleal wrote:
| Regulating the tech Market is great for local tech so what
| happens is pretty the opposite. No country will lose GDP if meta
| or google leave
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| how much of gdp is facilitated through the search abilities of
| meta and google, though?
| chmod775 wrote:
| Are you just counting on others being too exhausted to bring
| yet another moot argument to its predetermined conclusion?
|
| I'll finish it to save everyone some time:
|
| A: how much of gdp is facilitated through the search
| abilities of meta and google, though?
|
| B: It doesn't matter.
|
| A: Why not?
|
| B: There will be someone else who is willing to play by the
| local rules fulfilling the same function in their place, just
| like in many countries around the world already.
| threeseed wrote:
| > There will be someone else who is willing to play by the
| local rules
|
| Building a competitive search engine or AI model requires
| VC investment.
|
| It's simply too expensive to do otherwise.
|
| VC investment requires a vibrant startup ecosystem, well
| crafted regulations and a risk-tolerant culture.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > Building a competitive search engine [..] requires VC
| investment.
|
| > VC investment requires a vibrant startup ecosystem,
| well crafted regulations and a risk-tolerant culture.
|
| Yandex, Baidu, and many other lesser-known local-only
| search engines exist. There's also nothing stopping an
| already existing technology company from entering search.
| The statement is incorrect.
|
| Meanwhile common sense tells us that obviously there's
| going to be investment into domestic search engines if
| Google voluntarily throws in the towel. Europe is a huge
| place and there's a lot of money to be made, even if it's
| merely with context-based advertising and no individual
| tracking.
|
| > Building a competitive [..] AI model requires VC
| investment [..] and a risk-tolerant culture.
|
| Training a large model anyways, since nobody has really
| figured out how to recoup that investment yet. Why are
| you trying to derail this from talking about search
| though?
| Avamander wrote:
| Search abilities increasingly loathed for poor quality,
| blocked by providers, made useless by AI slop and superseded
| by the likes of even TikTok?
| 3np wrote:
| FP tends to have pro-US spin. This article reads as propaganda
| attempting to protect US interests.
| dnissley wrote:
| Tech is very interconnected though, and the article points out
| an example where what you state is very much not true: "How
| would Mistral, a leading AI firm, survive if Nvidia exits the
| French market due to regulatory concerns?"
| Vinnl wrote:
| Would've been good if they had been able to come up with a
| realistic example that could be problematic, but they have
| not made the case at all while Nvidia would forego the EU
| market.
| dnissley wrote:
| Theoretically it would just be the French market, due to:
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-antitrust-
| regulato...
| Lichtso wrote:
| > Regulating the tech Market is great for local tech
|
| Except, it is not. At least not in the situation that the EU is
| in. Because all regulations are a constant burden on business,
| small relative to big corporations, huge for medium companies
| and insurmountable for startups.
|
| The EU has no big players, not a single one! We have a few
| medium players like SAP and that is it. So, we are already far
| behind and every weight we load on to drag us down is another
| nail in the coffin.
| baal80spam wrote:
| We have a tech market?
| DataDaemon wrote:
| Europe is a place to take social benefits; there is no tech, no
| innovation. It's better to sit on the couch and watch Netflix
| than start a business. There is too much risk, too many taxes,
| and too many regulations.
| ab5tract wrote:
| Ah yes, innovation can only emerge from glorious pits of pain
| and hellfire.
| radley wrote:
| Spotify benefitted from starting in the EU.
| spongebobstoes wrote:
| I haven't heard that perspective before, can you elaborate?
| lucaspm98 wrote:
| I don't agree with the exaggeration in the parent comment,
| but your one counter-example pivoted their workforce
| expansion to the US after openly criticizing Sweden's
| business environment. They took issue with the shortage of
| employee housing due to over-regulated planning restrictions,
| unfavorable taxation of stock options, and a lack of
| programming and development education. Those issues (less so
| education) are applicable throughout the majority of the EU.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-founders-blast-
| swedens-...
| tuna74 wrote:
| Most devs in Sweden would be very happy to get US wages so
| this feels pretty much like bullshit.
|
| Also, Spotify could open offices in other places in Sweden
| (or Europe) if they want to be in places with lower CoL
| than Stockholm.
| bogantech wrote:
| I can't see how the wages have anything to do with the
| points in the parent comment but you're never going to
| get US wages in Sweden as long as the unions are involved
| self_awareness wrote:
| That's why there is low risk for them to compete with anyone
| who didn't get EU funds. Even if the tech is better.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > no innovation
|
| So all innovation requires you to capture user's data for
| profit via advertisement or data brokerage?
| bamboozled wrote:
| Had to laugh at that
| shreddit wrote:
| As always, empty space will be filled sooner or later. The
| question is, filled with better or worse?
| kredd wrote:
| I might be talking out of my depth, as I don't live in Europe,
| but I've heard the same paraphrased headlines like these since at
| least 2016. Has status quo been swayed one way or another since
| then? Theoretically speaking, wouldn't legislating away the top
| US players open the market to the local companies a la Naver in
| SK, WeChat in China or Line in Japan? I understand I'm dumbing it
| down, but assuming such legislations are supported by the local
| residents. I don't think I would support it, personally, but I
| can see their point as well.
| aranelsurion wrote:
| I don't get this article.
|
| Title is "Europe Is in Danger of Regulating Its Tech Market Out
| of Existence".
|
| But then the subtitle says "Poorly designed laws are forcing
| *global firms* to leave." (emphasis mine)
|
| Then you see a picture of an Apple Vision Pro. I've only
| skimmed through the article and there are 11 mentions of Apple
| and 12 mentions of Meta, then some mentions of X and such.
| These aren't even "global" firms, they are all American ones.
|
| If anything, it sounds like they may be regulating away US
| products from the European market, and that's a big "maybe",
| which is different from what I understood from the title they
| chose.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| You seem to have confused "tech market" with "tech industry".
| aranelsurion wrote:
| IDK, are local products and products from elsewhere other
| than US are not meant when one says "european tech market"?
|
| The title says the market is in danger of going out of
| existence, and the article solely mentions a handful of big
| US companies AFAICT.
|
| Or maybe it's a dig at Europe for having large parts of its
| market dominated by US companies, and I'm missing that.
| Vinnl wrote:
| It seems to hinge on extrapolating from Apple not doing AI in
| the EU that NVidia might leave the market, harming Mistral.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Why would Nvidia leave the market?
| Vinnl wrote:
| Beats me, and the article also doesn't back that up at
| all, other than that Apple skipped a feature in the EU.
| wmf wrote:
| Unspecified future boogeyman AI regulations. Or antitrust
| which Nvidia is already being investigated for.
|
| Realistically Nvidia did not leave China and they will
| not leave Europe.
| fl0id wrote:
| which doesn't make any sense, b/c afaik almost here AI
| regulations impact usage etc, not chip makers.
| wmf wrote:
| Some people are calling for GPUs to be nerfed but that's
| fringe at this point. If you wanted to create the most
| extreme strawman of EU regulation possible... maybe
| that's one example you'd come up with.
| pizlonator wrote:
| CUDA being viewers as anticompetitive by French
| regulators (source: the article).
| whazor wrote:
| A more practical example is that Facebook cannot promote its
| marketplace anymore. In Europe there are local alternatives
| for market places that get disadvantaged.
|
| Spotify, an EU company, has to compete with Apple Music and
| YouTube Music. Both of which have their own mobile operating
| systems and markets.
|
| Now we get a lot of backlash from these big tech firms as for
| years they have been integrating services into their walled
| gardens. Which now is hard to decouple from their platform.
| fruit2020 wrote:
| This is not always good for the end user. Now I have to go
| to google maps manually because it's most of the time no
| longer integrated with google search
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Typical US centric reporting. "EU tech market" == US
| companies' ability to make a profit in EU
| cheptsov wrote:
| I'm living in Europe, I'm deeply disappointed by the current
| situation. The problems run much deeper than just regulations;
| they extend far beyond politics.
|
| 1. VCs outright avoid investing in deep tech, with only rare
| exceptions.
|
| 2. Founders overwhelmingly choose to build small, sustainable
| companies, steering clear of big tech.
|
| 3. Employees consistently prefer consulting jobs and value
| vacation days over equity.
|
| 4. The bureaucracy startups face when incorporating or raising
| funds is staggering (Germany, I'm looking at you).
|
| While this may seem beneficial from a social perspective, it
| creates the worst possible environment for tech startups. I
| have immense respect for the few European startups that manage
| to survive and thrive despite these obstacles.
| kredd wrote:
| Fair enough. Unless I misunderstood your point it sounds
| like, what you guys have right now is good for people and
| their lives. Isn't that the entire point of life? I can see
| why general population might support it, while us techies
| would be pushing for deregulation and less of work-life
| balance. So my understanding of these articles is "it might
| be bad in a long term!", but Europe is still big enough
| market for all these companies eventually bend over backwards
| to get access to it.
|
| Again, really no skin in the game, as I don't live there and
| I only have limited amount of perspective, which comes from
| my European resident non-techie friends.
| cheptsov wrote:
| Europe is an amazing place, which is why I moved here in
| the first place. But for techies, it can be pretty
| challenging. The issue isn't with the techies themselves,
| though. The problem is that the environment here holds back
| big tech, making Europe heavily dependent on the US.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think a lot of the complaining on HN comes from the
| engineers themselves. "Ugh," they say, "We have to write
| all of this boring code to comply with regulations, rather
| than writing exciting features!" I see it a little
| differently. As someone who's spent a good part of the last
| 6-8 years working on GDPR and DMA compliance projects, the
| way I look at it is: "We are finally making our product
| better for users, working on privacy improvements that our
| companies have opposed until it was forced on them." EU-led
| regulation has been a great engineering opportunity and a
| product forcing-function.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| > what you guys have right now is good for people and their
| lives
|
| Let's see how long it lasts, Europe's economy is terrible
| and their people are significantly poorer. I don't think
| their current welfare state is sustainable without tax
| revenue from large businesses. Eventually every European
| citizen will be a waiter, hotel staff, or a tour guide.
| kazen44 wrote:
| how is europe's economy terrible? by what metric?
| considering that the EU still has a very large part of
| the global economy, especially compared to its population
| and size.
|
| Also, the tech industry is not the only part of the
| economy. large parts of the EU are absolutely massive in
| terms of industrial machinery and scientific companies.
|
| People on HN always seem to forget that a lot of money
| can be made by making something very high end which
| solves a specific problem, no matter if it is sexy or
| not.
| hnhg wrote:
| Maybe terrible is too strong but the trajectory is not
| great:
| https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/07/25/germanys-
| busine...?
| kazen44 wrote:
| well, lets not forget what happened since the start of
| 2022...
|
| the invasion of ukraine has a major impact on the
| european economy, but that has very little to do with the
| article in question...
| treprinum wrote:
| 40 years ago Europe (without former Warsaw Pact
| countries) accounted for 25% of global trade. These days
| it's ~12% and dropping. Since 2008 there is no meaningful
| GDP growth (1-2%) whereas US and China exploded in that
| time. India is on track to surpass EU by 2050. All that
| will be left is a large open-air museum.
| skywhopper wrote:
| You have a weird definition of "terrible". How much EU
| taxes are being paid by Apple, Meta, Google, etc?
| pelorat wrote:
| We pay more than enough taxes in Europe.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| We do, but Apple, Meta, and Google don't.
| kranke155 wrote:
| The real fundamental issue is VCs, which as you pointed out,
| are far more adventurous in America.
| cheptsov wrote:
| Unfortunately true, but one can also think that it's a
| consequence and not the root cause. Why VC should invest if
| the environment isn't supportive? A vicious circle :)
| kazen44 wrote:
| to give a different perspective,
|
| why are VC's somehow the cause of "tech industry"? this
| seems like a very US perspective on tech in general.
|
| Also, VC's in the US have another large advantage. Very,
| very cheap money because the status of the US dollar as a
| reserve currency compared to the euro and other
| currencies.
| skywhopper wrote:
| On the contrary, I see the VC influence on American tech
| has been incredibly destructive. No one builds companies or
| products or services to last. Everyone is only in it for
| the quick buck. Basically every service provided by big
| tech has turned into a chase to cover it with ads and seek
| as much rent as possible while never actually improving
| anything. The state of software has gone downhill
| precipitously in the past decade and it's only getting
| worse as VCs gain more and more control over the entire
| economy from housing to education to financial services to
| insurance.
| nrr wrote:
| "... seek as much rent as possible ..." I think this is
| sorely understated in the context of understanding
| Europe's regulatory environment vis-a-vis American big
| tech companies or targeted advertising-supported (read:
| personal data mining) software startups.
|
| We need to remember that Europe is the continent that
| gave us extractive colonialism. A player always knows
| their own game.
| nrr wrote:
| Germany's position in context is at least understandable: the
| Mittelstand is a force to be reckoned with, and that entire
| segment of Germany's trade system is extremely averse to
| risk. (It's also a lot of other things, part of which can be
| witnessed by hopping the border to Switzerland and reading
| through the platform for their self-proclaimed "Partei des
| Mittelstandes.")
| skywhopper wrote:
| Wait, these are problems? Other than #4 they all sound like
| good things.
| fl0id wrote:
| from a personal and social perspective, I see nothing wrong
| with it. In fact, even in the EU we still ahve a lot of BS
| startups. We imo need more sustainable businesses, that value
| actual societal value/value to consumers or businesses over
| growth and shareholder value.
| cheptsov wrote:
| This seems like a very socialistic perspective to me, which
| might not align well with big tech and innovation. I
| suggest re-reading "Atlas Shrugged" for this topic.
| p_j_w wrote:
| It doesn't sound at all like the workers owning the means
| of production.
|
| >I suggest re-reading "Atlas Shrugged" for this topic.
|
| Ah yes, that's the problem. We all need to read and
| subscribe to the ideology of Ayn Rand, then we'd
| understand and everything would be better!
| LtWorf wrote:
| Just paid articles trying to push their agenda.
|
| We have no tech sector in europe. As soon as a company has more
| than 6 developers it gets bought by a USA company (that's a
| slight exaggeration, not by much).
| cheptsov wrote:
| Just curious what their agenda can be...
| pornel wrote:
| UK tried to have a "silicon roundabout" and attract VC
| investment, but then Brexit happened and the allure of English-
| speaking entry point into the EU market has disappeared.
|
| Europe has missed out on the craze of getting millions to build
| an Uber for Cats.
| preya2k wrote:
| Oh the irony of this article being covered by a consent screen
| that starts with:
|
| ,,We & our 735 technology partners ask you to consent to the use
| of cookies to store and access personal data on your device."
| lolinder wrote:
| Normally I wouldn't upvote a reply like this, but here in the
| US I got this one instead:
|
| > There appears to be a technical issue with your browser
|
| > This issue is preventing our website from loading properly.
| Please review the following troubleshooting tips or contact us
| at support@foreignpolicy.com.
|
| I had to disable Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection in
| order to proceed. This is the first time since that feature was
| rolled out that I've had to remember where they put that
| disable switch.
|
| EDIT: This isn't just a generic error handler, there's a
| specific piece of code that detects if their analytics provider
| loaded or not and shows that message if it didn't load. More
| details here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41082004
| _nalply wrote:
| Whenever something changes on the screen while reading Reader
| Mode gets activated immediately and without remorse.
| golergka wrote:
| Do you think it was deliberate or just a general reaction to
| an uncaught exception somewhere in the ad part of the app?
| lolinder wrote:
| This is the code that does it: // The
| tinypass.min.js script was blocked due to a browser content
| filter console.log('Piano Script was blocked');
| // Show error modal to user
| FP.Utils.Piano.showBrowserCompatibilityErrorModal();
|
| Looks like the code comes from their analytics provider:
| https://piano.io/
|
| Link to the source: https://foreignpolicy.com/_static/??-eJ
| y1lNtuwjAMhl9oIYCQGBf...
| Avamander wrote:
| Piano really needs to be blocked harder by adblockers,
| they're currently underblocked by most public lists.
| Disgusting surveillance machine.
| raverbashing wrote:
| The experience mirrors mine
|
| There are a lot of websites that make your phone boil in your
| hand with the amount of trackers, js and other crap
|
| Yes the cookie banners are annoying. But not more than the
| sign up ones, the maling list ones, the "Summer sale" ones,
| etc
| _Microft wrote:
| They can use any cookies required for providing services
| _without_ having to ask users at all.
|
| They do need to ask for cookies meant to siphon off people's
| data for all other purposes.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| If only the media had consolidated/unionized to be at the size
| scale of tech companies extracting advertising value from their
| reporting...
| nine_k wrote:
| While adtech may be the most profitable part of tech industry,
| it's by far not the only part. Everything from advanced
| electronics to genomics to super-strong materials to reusable
| spacecraft is the "technology sector", and its parts are
| tightly intertwined.
| Avamander wrote:
| This is the "innovation" the article is also talking about
| though, so it's great they give an example.
| spongebobstoes wrote:
| The real problem is that the requirements for a social platform
| are getting very onerous, to the point that it takes at least
| several engineers working full time on the problem.
|
| That really hurts a startup's ability to initially launch in the
| market, especially one with less VC money. (Certain BigCo new
| products can be thought of as a startup too, with limited
| budgets.)
|
| This doesn't just affect social media companies, it affects
| almost any product where a user can upload data, or any product
| with a social feature, no matter how peripheral the feature is.
|
| Turns out that's a wide swathe of technology, and that social
| features are fairly valuable.
|
| Of course the big companies will eventually get around to
| launching in Europe anyway, it will just trail behind the rest of
| the world.
| betaby wrote:
| In other words - classic regulatory capture.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Is that true though? Are there any 5-person startups with < 10k
| users getting sued/shutdown by this regulation?
| spongebobstoes wrote:
| That data point is very hard to provide any evidence for, and
| not sufficient to draw any conclusions from. For example,
| what if the company was never started? What if they pivoted
| after speaking to a lawyer?
| zug_zug wrote:
| Frankly I'm not very convinced by that -- it seems that
| most social networks are already killed by winner-takes-all
| SV companies buying-out any possible threat.
|
| The situation in America is an absolute nightmare with data
| being sold through all sorts of mechanisms with zero
| oversight (your ISP, your car, most apps on your phone,
| whoever does your credit scores) -- I'm sure there's some
| way to make successful tech that isn't the hellscape
| America has.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Which regulations are you referring to? Do those not apply just
| to those that have managed to obtain a dominant role, ie not
| startups entering the market?
| themagician wrote:
| The requirements for social platforms are just becoming more
| inline with all other industries. The period of special
| treatment is over. The era of, "If it's on social media then no
| one is liable for this content or the harm it may cause, but
| also I can still monetize it," is over.
|
| It is a welcome change, but not for those who mean to exploit
| the special status that "social media" and "apps" have been
| given all these years.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This can be said about any regulation that makes it more
| difficult to deliver a product. Are food safety regulations
| "onerous" because the food company has to hire several people
| to ensure their food is safe? A food startup who can't afford
| to hire those people might argue that they are at a
| disadvantage and therefore the regulations are onerous and
| favor large companies.
| llm_trw wrote:
| >A food startup who can't afford to hire those people might
| argue that they are at a disadvantage and therefore the
| regulations are onerous and favor large companies.
|
| That is literally the point of food regulations.
|
| They are prescriptive but descriptive.
|
| No regulation says 'make food with >100 E-coli per KG' it
| always says 'use stainless steel table, no smaller than
| 2mx1m, in a well ventilated room of size...'.
| belorn wrote:
| Most, if not all this kind of EU regulation has size limits,
| usually several steps between small startups with a small
| number of users, up to the size of gatekeeper platforms. There
| aren't many startups that start off as a gatekeeper since there
| is only six companies in the world that has that definition
| (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft).
| threeseed wrote:
| Bizarre to me that the EU doesn't understand the fundamental rule
| of business.
|
| Regulations need to be unambiguous, stable and evenly applied.
|
| Otherwise businesses have no ability to plan for the future and
| investment stops.
| wmf wrote:
| Short of the EU directly designing products there's always
| going to be ambiguity. Most of the "controversy" over GDPR and
| DMA appears to be completely artificial and caused by malicious
| compliance.
| jmclnx wrote:
| Because the EU values their citizens privacy tech may leave.
| Personally I could live with that if that is the result of my
| privacy being protected.
| betaby wrote:
| > Otherwise businesses have no ability to plan for the future
| and investment stops.
|
| And then there is a 'chat control' every year pushed
| relentlessly. Thus no, not at all. EU doesn't value citizens
| privacy.
| thrance wrote:
| Chat control still has not passed, and GDPR arguably contains
| a few articles in favor of citizens privacy. I wouldn't say
| "not at all".
| dijit wrote:
| The EU commission (made of elected statesmen from all over
| the EU) is free to propose as many laws as it wants, but
| these things never have broad appeal and do not pass
| parliament (the MEPs we directly elect).
|
| Chat control keeps being proposed by the same Swedish
| politician, and she will continue to do so and she will
| continue to fail- because politicians in the EU are already
| aware its stupid.
| cheptsov wrote:
| It's socialism versus capitalism at its finest. The problem is
| that socialism risks regulating big tech out of existence. Is
| that an issue? Absolutely. By stifling big tech, Europe becomes
| heavily dependent on the US, which ultimately hurts our quality
| of life. As an entrepreneur living in Europe, the best thing
| you can do is move to the US.
| kazen44 wrote:
| i don't think you know what socialism means if this is your
| interpretation.
|
| Lets not forget that half of the EU actually lived under a
| quasi socialist regime not that long ago...
| nrr wrote:
| I'm not sure I follow. The incumbent capital class is driving
| policy decisions around this. Where's the socialism?
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| If the EU cares about its citizen's privacy why does it do
| everything in its power to spy on its own citizens?
| _nalply wrote:
| Could articles like this bemoaning Europe's state of regulation
| be opinion pieces?
|
| What if what Europe does is a good idea for the people but just
| inconvenient for companies?
|
| Europe is one of the power houses of the world but with low self-
| esteem I am afraid. In the long term what matters is the people's
| quality of life and diversity.
|
| Take China or the US: if a lot of people don't have purchasing
| power and leisure who are then buying stuff for themselves as end
| users?
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Could articles like this bemoaning Europe's state of
| regulation be opinion pieces?
|
| I agree with the broader idea that a lot of this stuff is PR
| from vested interests, but this case it's not really secret,
| since the news outlet categorizes it as:
|
| > Argument - An expert's point of view on a current event.
| FredPret wrote:
| Are you under the impression that people in the US _don 't_
| have purchasing power?
|
| Also, Europe is a power house right now, but won't be a
| generation from now if trends continue. All forms of power are
| built on economic power or are a means to get economic power.
| thrance wrote:
| As an European, I heard that 60% of Americans live paycheck
| to paycheck. I don't think our laws should focus on tech
| companies' freedom since it doesn't seem to improve the
| people's lives.
| FredPret wrote:
| Not sure where that stat comes from - median wealth in the
| USA compares extremely favourably with the rest of the
| world, while the average blows everyone except Switzerland
| out of the water.
|
| Also, living paycheck to paycheck != being poor. There are
| many people with high incomes but poor budgeting who live
| paycheck to paycheck, but will realistically be just fine
| if they have to tighten their braces.
| pembrook wrote:
| No need to "hear." This is easily Googled.
|
| Americans have the highest level of disposable income in
| the world, and it's not even close. Even Europe's mega-rich
| tax havens like Luxembourg have a lower disposable income
| than Americans.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_
| c...
|
| Yea I know the rebuttal--"but I also heard they all have
| $100,000 hospital bills every year!!" The disposable per
| capita income numbers already account for healthcare
| expenditures.
| llm_trw wrote:
| >In the long term what matters is the people's quality of life
| and diversity.
|
| I think you'll be surprised to find out just how many Europeans
| disagree with the diversity part. We are quite close to ethno-
| state Europe, just like how it was between 1800 and 1950.
|
| Ask a European what they think of Gypsies for a wild time.
| localfirst wrote:
| > What if what Europe does is a good idea for the people but
| just inconvenient for companies?
|
| Thats exactly the issue. What's good for Europeans isn't so
| good for American corporations.
|
| Already populist presidents in America have signaled they don't
| care about Europe so why should Europeans nurture and allow a
| hostile country continue to operate in their lands?
|
| This type of outrage from American MSM is quite baffling.
| Whether their billionaires like it or not countries are going
| their own way and the biggest slap in the face is that those
| billionaires do not even live in America.
| quitit wrote:
| The core issue with the DMA is that there is no kind of pre-
| vetting or assurances available. This is combined with a very
| wide set of interpretations from a vague set of texts. We've
| already seen the DMA being waged against a scenario which
| Margrethe Vestager1 herself had originally stated would be an
| ideal outcome of the DMA.2
|
| When 10% of global revenue is on the line it makes adequate sense
| to tread carefully with EU releases until there is some legal
| precedent. (And 20% if the EU finds that compliance isn't being
| met.)
|
| Margrethe Vestager has stated that withholding features is proof
| of anti-competitive behaviour. Such a statement would be
| hilarious if it wasn't so obviously preordained, and patently
| tone-deaf from the consequences of her own statements.
|
| So what's the end game for the EU? In theory this should allow
| local and small competitors to fill the void since they're not
| beholden to the DMA. My expectation is that it'll just be the EU
| perpetually several steps behind the rest of the world and some
| types of tech involvement only available via US-based
| purchases/import basis.
|
| 1 Margrethe Vestager: " _I would like to have a Facebook in which
| I pay a fee each month, but I would have no tracking and
| advertising and the full benefits of privacy._ "
| https://www.euractiv.com/section/competition/interview/vesta...
|
| 2 Facebook and Instagram's 'pay or consent' ad model violates the
| DMA, says the EU https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/1/24189796/eu-
| meta-dma-viola...
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| while we use it a lot apple is not our tech market.
| threeseed wrote:
| No but between Apple and Google they are the foundation of
| mobility.
|
| And if they are not going to bring AI SDKs to the EU because of
| the regulatory risk then an entire class of potential startups
| will never exist.
| guax wrote:
| There as much ai shenanigans going on here in Europe as in
| US. DMA rules do not apply to startups. GDPR is good and
| stings larger corporations more than smaller ones.
|
| Apple and Google are holding a beta risky feature and
| leveraging it as reason to get some sympathy.
| TekMol wrote:
| I think it already did.
|
| I am an avid reader of Show HNs. And I remember many that became
| successful businesses. But not a single European one.
|
| All the "startups" that I see here in Europe are very classical
| businesses. They build software tools for local enterprises.
|
| It seems nobody in Europe is building something for the open web.
| Maybe because nobody here understands all the regulations that
| come with it. The GDPR alone is 100 pages of legal mumbo jumbo.
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| That's probably not a regulation issue that's mostly hitting US
| big tech, though.
|
| European schools and universities tend to drill people towards
| employment and not to take too many risks so starting companies
| isn't as widespread and considered too bureaucratic.
|
| Then there's the issue of multiple currencies and not every
| checkout SaaS supporting all of them and their various options
| of payment (afaik), which limits reach. That's a problem the
| US, India, China and Russia don't have.
| dang wrote:
| I've noticed that European Show HNs tend to be open-source
| projects rather than startups. Not interpreting, just noticing.
| jinushaun wrote:
| I wish there was more to the US tech industry than social
| networks and ads.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| They have some valid gripes but then they get to:
|
| _Or consider the recent charges the EU levied against X. Under
| Elon Musk's ownership, anyone can now purchase a blue check with
| a paid subscription, whereas blue checks were previously reserved
| for notable figures. EU regulators singled out the new system for
| blue checks as a deceptive business practice that violates the
| bloc's Digital Services Act._
|
| What are they thinking?? The blue check mark is supposed to mean
| verified. They changed it to simply mean paid subscription. They
| took a symbol of trust and utterly ripped out the trust part. I
| don't care how much you publicize it, that's not acceptable.
|
| Would he be ok with my going and purchasing a SSL certificate for
| www.x.com???
| nradov wrote:
| Don't be naive. It was never a symbol of trust. At most it was
| a symbol of prominence or notability as decided by a biased,
| unaccountable group of Twitter employees. Many of the old blue
| check mark accounts routinely posted inaccurate information or
| outright lies.
|
| The new X Community Notes system is far superior for
| establishing trust.
|
| https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/biden-clai...
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-05-22/elon-m...
|
| Fundamentally just because a software feature worked a certain
| way at one time doesn't create an obligation for tech companies
| to keep it working the same way. Whether you consider that
| acceptable is entirely irrelevant.
| johnthewise wrote:
| >Many of the old blue check mark accounts routinely posted
| inaccurate information or outright lies.
|
| There are always going to be misinformation. It's crazy to
| think a company or any committee can determine these for us
| though. It's not even logical yet alone practical. then you
| need to determine whether said entity made any judgment
| errors in assessing a person or claim. Those who demand
| centralized 'truth' authorities are useful idiots for power
| seeking authoritarians.
| johnthewise wrote:
| It's not a certificate, it's a blue mark on a site that tell's
| you user is verified through payment. It should never be a
| symbol of trust, as twitter or anyone can't assess the
| trustworthiness of individuals :)
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's probably smarter to only kick-in regulations after certain
| size thresholds are met. You can definitely strangle an
| organization with paperwork before it even has enough money to
| hire people to do the paperwork.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Like the gatekeeper designation in the DMA, or the threshold
| for assigning a data privacy officer in GDPR, you mean?
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| That's the case for most, if not all, of the new European
| regulations, such as the Digital Markets Act. The number of
| companies to which it applies can be counted on your hands, and
| they all have tens of billions of dollars of revenue.
| Avamander wrote:
| I don't think safely handling data subject's data for example
| is something that should start only from a certain size.
|
| Let's only make the small bridges unsafe?
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Nah, not really. The EU will have a thriving tech market. It just
| won't have ad-supported sites. Because if anyone hasn't noticed,
| "data privacy" is just targeted ads.
|
| "This company was caught tracking which users visited each page"
| Yes, for targeted ads.
|
| "Cambridge Analytica was" Yes, for targeted ads.
|
| "3rd party" Yes, targeted ads.
|
| It's all targeted ads. They want to serve you targeted ads. Any
| attempt to paint "data privacy" as something other than this is
| irresponsible fearmongering.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/sLsnW
| kabes wrote:
| Tech is more than social networks though
| Loughla wrote:
| Yeah, it's advertising too.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Apparently the author founded the "Center for New Liberalism". I
| tried to find out how that's funded, but could only see
| memberships that gives access to a 700+-person Slack, and
| couldn't find what the dues are. Would be interested in learning
| more about that, if anyone knows more.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Not only the tech market, they're on a pace in destroying the
| agricultural market as well. Small, medium size farmers are
| disappearing fast, they quit or at best being absorbed by large
| farmcorps.
| threatofrain wrote:
| For agriculture at large I wonder if that's not going to be the
| final economic state everywhere in the world, regardless of
| government. That's just more efficient. Is there anywhere in
| the world where this trend is reversing and looking healthy?
| silverquiet wrote:
| It's literal Econ 101 that economies of scale push towards
| monopolization. It's why we used to have anti-trust laws in
| the US.
| stfp wrote:
| Unless you only look at the financial side of things, and
| only from the perspective of the larger corps benefiting from
| this trend, it's not healthy at all.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I'm asking for counterexamples which are healthy. What is
| the leading example in your mind?
| stvltvs wrote:
| American agriculture already went down that path. This might be
| a global pattern following the adoption of improved technology.
| Is there a reason to believe otherwise in the case of Europe?
| Or maybe it's a multifaceted phenomenon.
| kazen44 wrote:
| the agriculture market relies heavily on goverment intervention
| to even exist.
|
| The EU and its member states give out huge subsidies to keep
| food production local in the EU without being completely
| destroyed by cheaper crops from third world countries.
|
| The US does the same, and it is for good reason, to actually
| make sure a steady food supply exists inside the country/union.
| nradov wrote:
| When it comes to commodity staple foods there's just no way
| that small farms can survive. It isn't realistic given advances
| in technology and economies of scale. This isn't a problem,
| it's just inevitable. Small farms that want to remain
| independent will have to switch from commodities to specialty
| foods that command higher profit margins.
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| That's not destroying it, that's saving it from the doldrums of
| inefficiency and requiring masses of people focused on food
| production.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| That's already happened in the US without regulation, little
| farms don't stand a chance against giant agribusinesses which
| may not even be US owned (largest pork producer is owned by
| Chinese) . In fact regulation is probably preventing it from
| happening faster in the EU.
| melbourne_mat wrote:
| Not advocating for it but it's called economies of scale and
| it's happening in every country including mine (Australia)
| lennixm wrote:
| So making agricultural markets orders of magnitudes more
| efficient is destroying it in your view?
| multimoon wrote:
| I think we can debate regulations being productive or not all day
| and either side of the camp will never agree, however my biggest
| personal issue is that the government is removing the choice from
| anyone involved. As an adult you should be able to chose for
| yourself - if everyone chose no, then nobody would use these
| services and the companies wouldn't do it. I think the effort
| needs to be focused on awareness and education, not restriction.
|
| If the average user is fine with their data being sold in
| exchange for a service, then why not let them?
|
| I'm personally not okay with it and I keep my data footprint as
| low as I can, but I know lots of people who just do not care if
| they get a service in return, and are fully understanding of what
| that means.
| Sakos wrote:
| Companies circumvent real choice all the time. Regulations
| prevent them from doing so. There's no equivalency here. EU has
| repeatedly made legislation that does something or anything to
| counteract the power these tech companies have over the lives
| of billions. The EU has an interest in serving the needs of EU
| citizens. Tech companies do not. Tech companies only care about
| their bottom line, regardless of the human or financial cost to
| anybody else. There is no option for individuals to do anything
| about these companies. That's what we need governments for.
|
| The US has largely decided that companies shouldn't be
| regulated at all (particularly with the recent Supreme Court
| decisions). This isn't a good thing. It will not benefit the
| vast majority of US citizens. There is no "choice" citizens can
| make that will undo the unraveling of government regulations on
| industry/business, unless it's voting for a political party
| that one that will reform the Supreme Court and revert their
| insane decisions, a party that isn't the GOP.
| multimoon wrote:
| Then it sounds like what you're saying is there's a financial
| market for users like you and I who would rather pay a
| subscription fee than our data be sold? Or an ad supported
| tier?
|
| The problem with your argument is you're removing any revenue
| source the company has. If you won't pay a subscription, and
| you block all the ads, and they can't sell data, how do they
| make money? Money is required to run the service, whether
| that leaves a sour taste or not.
|
| If you think you have a financially viable model that
| protects data, then you should start a company on that
| premise, I'd genuinely love to see someone make it work.
| Sakos wrote:
| > Then it sounds like what you're saying is there's a
| financial market for users like you and I who would rather
| pay a subscription fee than our data be sold? Or an ad
| supported tier?
|
| And the vast majority of users don't deserve privacy? Nah,
| that's a ridiculous argument to make and I'm not going to
| waste my time with this line of discussion. You're not
| making a good faith argument. I'm not playing your stupid
| games.
| threatofrain wrote:
| There's plenty of interpretative room to view the above
| comment as honest discussion as opposed to dishonesty
| ("bad faith"). But now you've burned the bridge so hard
| why do you even bother making an argument? Just to get
| the last word?
|
| One cannot unring a bell.
| multimoon wrote:
| I don't think there's need for anger, I'm not "playing
| games". All I'm doing is pointing out that there has to
| be a source of revenue to run any given service - and if
| you remove all the sources of revenue then the service
| ceases to exist. Right now the only viable sources of
| revenue at that kind of online service scale is
| subscriptions, ads, or data collection and sale.
|
| If there's a method I'm not thinking of I'm genuinely
| curious what the financial model would look like.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| No one is forcing you to use these services. I care very
| much about my privacy and only use a handful of services
| that respect that privacy. Stop giving your money to
| companies you disagree with and stop forcing your
| morality on others. Because all that does is set the
| precedent for someone to force their morality on you even
| if you disagree with it. That's how we get anti gay,
| xenophobic, extremists forcing their moral views on
| others.
|
| Let people decide what is right for them.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Protection of the water we drink is a legal right. Which is
| why companies cannot dump waste into the river, no matter
| what financial impacts it has on them.
|
| Protection of user data is a legal right, or increasingly
| recognized to be. Companies have no right to sell it, or
| misuse it, no matter what financial impacts it has on them.
|
| Rights cannot be contracted away or sold. They are rights.
| delichon wrote:
| I rent my rights via a contract to certain defined
| aspects of my autonomy for about forty hours per week. In
| exchange for that I get tokens that I can exchange for
| food. If I couldn't contract away those rights I'd get
| hungry.
|
| I'm also willing to rent my right to determine the
| contents of advertisements inserted into my daily news
| feed, for the right price. These things feel equivalent
| in kind to me.
| ab5tract wrote:
| What rights are you contracting away, exactly?
|
| Usually capitalist rhetoric refers to contracting as a
| right in itself, muddying your point significantly.
| delichon wrote:
| I contract away time-slices of my human effort. I
| consider that I own that effort by right, and part of
| that ownership bundle is the right to destroy or exchange
| it. So it is consistent to both have a right and to trade
| parts of it away. It would be less of a right if I were
| prohibited from exchanging it for other priorities, like
| food.
| johnthewise wrote:
| You are saying I shouldn't be able to consent to letting
| someone sell my data? Can I sell my own data? How about
| if I shared it, would that be illegal?
| themagician wrote:
| It's not (necessarily) about _you._
|
| When you knowingly agree to use a service that sells your data,
| that's fine. When you link it to Facebook and then give it
| access to your contacts and the name, email address, and phone
| number of every person you know gets sold to a company that
| then goes and uses that information to send personalized
| phishing emails and commit fraud that's a lot less fine.
|
| At the end of the day its about liability. There are many tech
| companies that are responsible for harm at both the individual
| and societal level, and they are not held accountable.
| 13415 wrote:
| > _If the average user is fine with their data being sold in
| exchange for a service, then why not let them?_
|
| But they are _not_ okay with it. I understand why Corporations
| like to insinuate that people who click OK to twenty pages of
| legalese in an EULA really are okay with whatever clauses in
| it, but in reality this practice is an abuse of contract law
| and exploiting asymmetric power relations. In theory, a
| potential customer could print EULAs out, suggest changes, and
| send back the revised contract for approval or further
| negotiation. In practice, nobody ever does that and
| corporations would freak out if it happened on a large scale.
|
| The problem does not just occur with new big tech. Banks have
| been doing the same for decades. I recently put some money on a
| savings account and was greeted with pages and pages of fine
| print that literally only a lawyer can understand. Normally,
| nobody in their right mind would accept this. However, the bank
| serves as a utility, changing banks is very difficult where I
| live and they all have the same kind of contracts in their
| favor. There is no alternative. The same is true for social
| networks and other big tech. It's not really a free choice for
| a small business owner to have a Facebook account or for a
| self-published author to put their books on Amazon, for
| instance.
|
| That's why strong regulations, good customer protection and
| privacy laws are needed.
| smitty1e wrote:
| Think of regulation as a higher form of tech.
|
| Then ask yourself how exactly the architects were self-
| medicating.
| thrance wrote:
| I wish targeted advertising was made completely illegal here, I
| am sure our society would greatly benefit from that.
| _ink_ wrote:
| I agree to the fullest
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| I'd just say all advertising. It's effectively money time and
| effort we just light on fire.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| Why not make Sales illegal too.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| Happily. I'm not very fond of dumb calls from "sales"
| starting with "Let me introduce you to our new shiny
| product"...
| in_a_society wrote:
| Just curious, what industry do you work in?
| thfuran wrote:
| _All_ advertising is a step too far, I think. But banning
| accepting any remuneration to deliver, display, or cause to
| be viewed any advertisement, and limiting physical ads in
| places viewable from public areas seems like it would improve
| things. Buildings shouldn 't be covered in ads, and the
| internet shouldn't be largely based around scamming as much
| information out of people as possible to jam ads down their
| throat, but a business should be allowed to put up flyers on
| their own storefront. I mean, if you're really pedantic about
| banning all ads, that probably precludes restaurants posting
| menus out front.
| amelius wrote:
| Bring yellow pages back.
| mjevans wrote:
| Extremely limited, focused, designed to deliver facts rather
| than entertainment or flashy catchy content 'ads' could be
| informative and beneficial. The structure of the ad should be
| as close to sanitized textbook as possible, maybe even follow
| a regulated formula. Something like, "This is a thing that
| exists. Here's the benefit without dramatizing or 'selling'
| someone something they don't need. X brand can be found at Y
| location for Z cost."
|
| It's easy to agree with all advertising. I think that's the
| quickest, easiest measure to cut that yields an outcome
| beneficial to society, and that more ads are nearly always
| worse.
|
| I also think that sales are worse for society than every day
| prices that deliver value; sales do make sense for things
| like seasonal items which are in abundance due to just being
| harvested.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Do you actually get relevant online ads? I usually get ads
| about the thing I just bought
| baq wrote:
| I thought it's idiotic until the first time I sent something
| back for a refund.
| fruit2020 wrote:
| And how many times did you do that :))
| ambicapter wrote:
| The great thing about them selling you something made to
| be as crappy as you will stand, is that then you'll then
| have to refund it all the time, making their re-targeting
| ads even more "effective" :)) What a virtuous cycle!
| finolex1 wrote:
| Why would it benefit society to get less targeted ads as
| opposed to more targeted ones?
| ab5tract wrote:
| Because there would be no incentive to commodify user
| activity, bundle it up, and resell it to ever more dubious
| information brokers?
| llm_trw wrote:
| You'd need to ban targeted marketing, not just advertising.
|
| If I were selling widgets I still greatly care about
| knowing who buys a billion widgets a year and will pay good
| money to find out.
| amelius wrote:
| Also it would help reduce overconsumption which is great
| given the finite resources we have on this planet.
| ozim wrote:
| Ads can be targeted but not at individual.
|
| If I am Tylor Swift fan I should get her merch advertising
| only when I am visiting swifties forum or group - but not
| when I am checking my fishing forum where I expect fishing
| gear ads. But nowadays I get adsg
| autoexec wrote:
| > Why would it benefit society to get less targeted ads as
| opposed to more targeted ones?
|
| Because more targeted ads require a dangerous and abusive
| system of pervasive surveillance while less targeted ads can
| still be targeted without hurting as many people in the
| process.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| Ads would be less effective at convincing people to be
| unhappy.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| This would kill the free internet tomorrow, and the one billion
| YouTube viewers would likely be quite upset about it.
|
| Untargeted ads pay less than 5% what targeted ones do.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| A company that provides a phone service (mobile or other) has to
| conform to a large amount of regulatory red tape. Why? because
| either a company before tried to monopolise the entire country,
| or they killed someone.
|
| Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people (unlike
| say tobacco, or talc powder, 3M and half of their solvents, weed
| killer, most car makers, etc etc)
|
| but they have been trying desperately to stop all competition.
|
| They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as
| possible for profit. Because regulators in the USA are hamstrung,
| they are used to being able to basically doing stuff that would
| be illegal if it were in physical stores/pre-existing industries.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > but they have been trying desperately to stop all
| competition.
|
| Every large company in every industry wants to do this.
|
| > They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as
| possible for profit.
|
| Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits?
| ktosobcy wrote:
| > Every large company in every industry wants to do this.
|
| And the point of regulation is to stop it and bring balance.
| Or are you happy with mono-/oligopolies?
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| I'm fine with regulation to prevent monopolies / duopolies.
|
| In practice, regulation almost never actually does that.
|
| Every major industry is a monopoly or duopoly if you're
| even a bit generous with the term.
|
| I'm just pointing out there is nothing unique here with
| tech or data.
|
| And the politics are mostly theater that often makes things
| more monopolistic, not less.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| I read that as saying there's nothing to be done,
| monopolies are natural, we can't stop the order of things
| without making everything worse, we must just acquiesce
| and learn to live with them.
|
| Is that correct? I have a hard time thinking that is
| true.
| NegativeK wrote:
| > Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits?
|
| People keep talking about the obligation to shareholders for
| a company to maximize profits, but there's a wide list of
| possibilities between not doing that and seeking to actively,
| wholesale ruin privacy.
|
| I expect the people in companies to take responsibility for
| their actions instead of pretending that they're beholden to
| the company's wants.
| buzzert wrote:
| > They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as
| possible for profit. Because regulators in the USA are
| hamstrung, they are used to being able to basically doing stuff
| that would be illegal if it were in physical stores/pre-
| existing industries.
|
| Did you actually read the article? I don't know how you square
| this kobayashi maru situation, unless you think Meta is
| outright lying about it:
|
| > Europe recently charged Meta with breaching EU regulations
| over its "pay or consent" plan. Meta's business is built around
| personalized ads, which are worth far more than non-
| personalized ads. EU regulators required that Meta provide an
| option that did not involve tracking user data, so Meta created
| a paid model that would allow users to pay a fee for an ad-free
| service. This was already a significant concession--
| personalized ads are so valuable that one analyst estimated
| paid users would bring in 60 percent less revenue. But EU
| regulators are now insisting this model also breaches the
| rules, saying that Meta fails to provide a less personalized
| but equivalent version of Meta's social networks. They're
| demanding that Meta provide free full services without
| personalized ads or a monthly fee for users. In a very real
| sense, the EU has ruled that Meta's core business model is
| illegal. Non-personalized ads cannot economically sustain
| Meta's services, but it's the only solution EU regulators want
| to accept.
|
| Also, what about the CUDA situation? I don't see how any
| consumer is _harmed_ by this, which is quite different from a
| social media company doing its thing.
| skywhopper wrote:
| lol. You don't think Meta would outright lie about this
| stuff? They have been for years and years. Why is this
| different?
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| > _In a very real sense, the EU has ruled that Meta's core
| business model is illegal._
|
| Is this actually bad?
| echelon wrote:
| You're free to not be a user, but millions of other people
| want it.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| BS. Lot's of companies / entities moved there because of
| said "millions" so you are unwillingly forced to use them
| as a mean of contact. And sadly open alternatives are
| blocked/unavailable...
| dingnuts wrote:
| you know it's possible to get through life without either
| Facebook or a Facebook alternative, right?
|
| I closed my account ten years ago, and I don't have an
| alternative. After the withdrawal period I stopped
| caring.
|
| My loved ones send me text messages of their kids.
| Exactly what is the point of Facebook?
| bamboozled wrote:
| He means the network effects of it. Facebook has locked
| people in via Facebook groups, Instagram messenger and
| such.
|
| So many people are in it's if you don't have it, it's
| hard to be part of certain communities.
|
| I deleted my Facebook like ten years ago, I missed out on
| a a LOT of party invites.
| lolinder wrote:
| No, but the EU and the citizens thereof should then accept
| that Meta or other similar companies in similar situations
| can't operate within the EU.
|
| The EU regulators and select HN users might be okay with
| that, but EU citizens on average probably won't be.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _No, but the EU and the citizens thereof should then
| accept that Meta or other similar companies in similar
| situations can 't operate within the EU_
|
| More pointedly, that they can't be built in or run from
| the EU.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| > No, but the EU and the citizens thereof should then
| accept that Meta or other similar companies in similar
| situations can't operate within the EU.
|
| I wouldn't mind if FB left...
| lolinder wrote:
| That's why I said this:
|
| > The EU regulators and select HN users might be okay
| with that
| sensanaty wrote:
| Meta should've been nuked when Cambridge Analytica
| happened; the fact that US lawmakers did nothing after
| that is a complete joke. Zucc should be in jail alongside
| every other piece of shit who thinks it's their right to
| mass-harvest every single person's personal data
| indiscriminately for profit.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| For what is worth, I think Meta is lying about it, or at
| least playing the victim card too strongly.
|
| > _They're demanding that Meta provide free full services
| without personalized ads or a monthly fee for users._
|
| Meta is being sued because their paid plan is not honest -
| they are currently asking for 10EUR/month which is
| disproportionate - for comparison, a Business Standard Google
| Workspace account with 2Tb and Gemini costs 11EUR. From [1],
| "EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the
| user. Contrary to this law, Meta charges a 'privacy fee' of
| up to EUR250 per year if anyone dares to exercise their
| fundamental right to data protection".
|
| [1] https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-files-gdpr-complaint-against-
| meta-ov...
| t1hrowaway wrote:
| The price looks reasonable to me after looking at the
| average revenue per user.
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-
| average...
| sensanaty wrote:
| I don't believe a single word anyone from Meta says, yes.
| That company is full of amoral scum, you think lying is
| beneath them if it helps them out?
| Someone wrote:
| > They're demanding that Meta provide free full services
| without personalized ads or a monthly fee for users
|
| Where are they demanding that? Reading https://ec.europa.eu/c
| ommission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_24_..., their complaints
| seem to be that Facebook
|
| - cannot call the 'with adverts' version 'free'
|
| - makes it too difficult for consumers to find out what
| exactly they give to facebook in exchange for this 'free'
| service
|
| - is not clear enough about the fact that paying will not
| remove all ads
|
| - forces existing users to choose between paid and 'free'
| versions before they can use the service again.
|
| Nowhere do they say on that page that Meta "provide free full
| services without personalized ads or a monthly fee for
| users". Am I reading the wrong page?
| newsclues wrote:
| Do companies need onerous regulations that increase costs for
| consumers or do they need the incentive in form of not having
| their corporate charter cancelled and corporate officers banned
| from doing business as a threat to maintain a fair market?
| pembrook wrote:
| Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to
| support competition instead.
|
| You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital
| Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the
| potential monopolists.
|
| However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the
| opposite.
|
| Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing
| [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens, because
| doing something new always involves unknown risk. Most people
| aren't entrepreneurs and hate risk, so they pass regulation,
| and the market gets locked down so nothing new happens again.
| Incumbents and their army of lawyers can easily comply or are
| grandfathered in, and challengers are permanently
| disadvantaged. That market is officially dead until the next
| fundamental leap forward in technology.
|
| What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading
| regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation _before
| we 've even had a chance to experience both the upside and
| downside,_ so the innovation never happens at all.
|
| Combine this with a rapidly aging demography in Europe, and I
| only see this trend increasing. If there's one thing old people
| hate, it's risk and doing new things. Meanwhile, those same old
| folks are expecting massive payouts (social benefits) via
| taxation of the same private sector they're currently wrapping
| in red tape. While ironic, those two trends converging aren't
| great for Europe.
| lolinder wrote:
| > You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital
| Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the
| potential monopolists.
|
| I'm against the way it's being applied to Apple. I don't
| think that the government should dictate that consumers
| aren't allowed to choose a platform that's a locked down
| walled garden if that's what they want.
|
| We have platforms that aren't walled gardens (Android) that
| many of us happily use (myself included), and Apple shouldn't
| have to become something that it didn't set out to be just
| because a few other big tech companies feel stifled by
| Apple's rules.
| fl0id wrote:
| this argument doesn't work, because you could always argue
| that the consumer chose this product, and thus its features
| and practices should be allowed. Apple had it coming for a
| long time already, one way or another. And Microsoft also
| will again the way they are going.
| lolinder wrote:
| Yeah, sure, you _could_ always argue that about anything,
| but that 's not a refutation of this particular argument
| in this particular situation. Apple's walled garden
| produces a lot of real benefits for its customers that
| are part of what make it successful, and dismantling
| their walled garden is going to harm consumers.
|
| I would never pick an Apple device for myself. I would
| also never recommend an Android phone to my mother-in-
| law. I, myself, know to avoid the many Android security
| holes that exist because it's a relaxed platform. But for
| my non-technical loved ones, Apple provides a much better
| experience in large part _because_ it 's a walled garden
| that makes it very difficult to install garbage.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Apple's walled garden produces a lot of real benefits
| for its customers that are part of what make it
| successful, and dismantling their walled garden is going
| to harm consumers.
|
| What are those benefits, and why would they evaporate if
| Apple adds an "Install from other sources" toggle? If you
| want to exclusively benefit from Apple's discernment,
| keep that toggle off and stay in the walled garden.If the
| benefits are so great, then surely everyone will _choose_
| to stay in the walled garden.
| standardUser wrote:
| Apple needs to get out of the infrastructure business if
| they want to play by their own rules. They aren't selling
| Gameboys and washing machines, they are storing people's
| private data and selling primary communication devices.
| That needs to be regulated and the consumer needs to have
| the final say, not Apple.
| lolinder wrote:
| > they are storing people's private data and selling
| primary communication devices.
|
| To be clear, I think privacy laws like GDPR absolutely
| have a place for consumer protection.
|
| I just don't think the DMA does. Watching how the DMA
| applies to Apple, it feels far less about consumer
| protection than it does about businesses, and that's what
| makes me uncomfortable. The EU is in this case listening
| to complaints from a bunch of other businesses who do
| _not_ have consumer interests at heart and ignoring the
| very real damage that their actions could do to consumer
| protection.
|
| The Apple App Store protects users from myriad abuses by
| myriad bad companies. The EU wants Apple to build a
| blessed, paved off-ramp that companies can strongly
| encourage prospective customers to use that brings them
| deeper into the manipulative control of those companies.
| nottorp wrote:
| > The Apple App Store protects users from myriad abuses
| by myriad bad companies.
|
| Does it? Are the $50/month subscription flashlight apps
| gone?
|
| This is just a form of 'think of the children'. Think of
| all those evil hackers waiting around the corner for the
| poor unsuspecting iPhone users.
| fallingknife wrote:
| If Apple was required to provide root access to all
| customers this would not prevent anyone from choosing to
| stay inside their walled garden.
| lolinder wrote:
| The question isn't whether anyone could choose to stay
| inside if they want to, the question is whether I can
| trust that {insert older relative here} will stay inside
| the garden and not get tricked by a sketchy website into
| installing something through the back doors the EU is
| mandating.
|
| If the opening up of Apple were as difficult to use as
| getting root on Android is I wouldn't have a problem. But
| that's not what's being proposed, and any attempts by
| Apple to make it less than perfectly smooth for someone
| to exit the walled garden are most likely going to be
| shot down.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Going out of your way on the internet to defend apples
| right to take 30% of every sale on the app store is insane
| to me.
|
| Just how can you not see there's probably 20% of every
| purchase sitting on the table if competition was ever
| allowed to occur.
|
| Not to mention the simple freedom of choosing what you want
| to install yourself, and not just what Apple allows you
| to...
| swatcoder wrote:
| > What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is
| leading regulators to pass potential market killing
| regulation
|
| This is _entirely_ because the experts and fundraisers _in
| the field_ promoted the technology as existentially and
| societally dangerous before they even got it to do anything
| commercially viable. "This has so much potential that it
| could destroy us all!" was the sales pitch!
|
| Of course regulators are going to take that seriously, as
| there's nobody of influence vested in trying to show them
| otherwise.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| The experts did that specifically so we would regulate
| barriers to entry into existence. It isn't a mew trick.
| Regulatory capture takes many guises, "think of the":
| Children, Consumers, ... Under booked hotels we could put
| you in.
| llm_trw wrote:
| OpenAI was smart enough to build a moat for itself in
| Europe.
|
| The EU was dumb enough to dig it for them.
| monksy wrote:
| What is the value that OpenAI is bringing to the US right
| now?
|
| Mostly its being used to generate text that fit a query.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Specifically with AI I don't want to experience the downside
| of innovation before we regulate because of how wide spread
| its use already is, and it's problems have already become
| apparent.
|
| For example, it's being used to job screen applicants even
| though we have proven that AI models still suffer from thing
| like racial bias. Companies don't disclose how their models
| are trained to negate bias or anything like that either and
| that's one example I remember off the top of my head
| nottorp wrote:
| > it's being used to job screen applicants even though we
| have proven that AI models still suffer from thing like
| racial bias
|
| I bet they also suffer from other biases that are harder to
| detect and maybe some biases we can't even imagine and thus
| control for.
| monksy wrote:
| It's not that most people hate risk. It's that individuals
| whom are harmed by sociopathic individuals that exploit
| methodologies, techniques, and products to enrich, steal, and
| harm the population. (When I say that I mean financially,
| emotionally, socially, physically, etc). To add further
| insult to injury, defending ones self against these
| individuals is disproportionately impossible.
|
| Socially: Creating and cultivating a culture that screws up
| dating.
|
| Emotionally: Filter bubbles, and data analyitics to push
| proganda and motivate people in directions (cambridge).
| Additionally subjecting people to material to manipulate.
|
| Stealing: Scooter companies are actively stealing the public
| space to operate their business (sidewalks), endorsing their
| users to run over people on the sidewalk (also making it
| difficult to identify the individual), etc.
|
| Privacy wise: Companies are forcing you to give up your
| private info to live. (Retail tracking to individuals.. even
| accross multiple companies [see "The Retail Equation"])
| usr1106 wrote:
| > Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people
| (unlike say tobacco, or talc powder, 3M and half of their
| solvents, weed killer, most car makers, etc etc)
|
| It's nearly as bad. Social media causes addiction and mental
| health problems especially for the youth. PISA scores are going
| down. It can already be seen now, although not many 20 year
| olds have had a smartphone for more than 10 years. Here in this
| country every 7 year old has a smartphone and it will get only
| worse. Physical health is impacted because of kids are tapping
| on a screen instead of running and playing. It has impact
| already to language learning and social development of babies
| because parents interact with their smartphone several hours a
| day and instead of interacting with their baby.
|
| Of course there is other tech than social media and
| smartphones. But at least in these areas equally strong
| regulation as for tobacco and alcohol would be required.
| baq wrote:
| > Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people
|
| Teen suicides are a thing. It isn't lung cancer, sure, but it
| also isn't nothing.
| fallingknife wrote:
| What do they do that would be illegal in physical stores? If I
| wanted to open a physical store that gave away free stuff but
| you had to agree to give a bunch of personal info that would be
| completely legal (but not profitable).
| kube-system wrote:
| The move-fast-and-break-things mentality of many tech companies
| has absolutely killed people.
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/parents-kids-died-after-dr...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicid...
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-scooter-electric-bike-...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-sues-airbnb-19-m...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/rohingya-seek-reparat...
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/40234/no-one-was-driving-in-te...
|
| "full-self-driving doesn't self drive", "wear a helmet on the
| bird scooter", and "safety is our first priority at facebook"
| is the 21st century version of "don't get roundup all over
| yourself"
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| did goon lawyers in Silicon Valley write this?
| skywhopper wrote:
| This is silly. So a bunch of American companies are refusing to
| go along with EU regulations that cramp their own monopolistic
| style. That doesn't mean they are killing the local tech market.
| nradov wrote:
| Is the local tech market alive?
| the_optimist wrote:
| The efficacy of bureaucratic destruction is explicit in warfare
| guidance [0]. We pretend peacetime is different. It's not.
|
| So among non-EU-dwellers, let's raise a glass to our fallen
| competitors and erstwhile comrades. Better than Nordstreaming
| them, or at least more subtle. Onward, toward a new vassal-state
| future!
|
| [0] https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=750070
| marmaduke wrote:
| The Human Brain Project's final 3 year period could have actually
| delivered a platform for actually modeling real human brain data,
| and GDPR totally blew that possibility out of the water: no one
| had the budget to take on the legal risk, and everything was
| finished up with synthetic/augmented datasets or done "locally".
|
| our colleagues in the US and China are chuckling, so we'll just
| move our science there.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| Please don't dissuade them/us from doing so.
| tivert wrote:
| I don't think big-tech companies exiting is a bad thing. They're
| so used to getting their own way and making the rules that it's
| probably signal that Europe is on the right track.
| localfirst wrote:
| Pretty much these articles from FP are notorious for their poor
| journalism and just a mouthpiece for billionaires
|
| In fact a huge chunk of American MSM is turning out to be
| unreliable and quick to deceive its readers who are still stuck
| in the "why would they lie to us".
|
| Europe is doing a good job and as are more sovereign countries
| waking up to the techno-colonialism at play.
|
| If Google or Facebook is in your country, they do not share
| your country's interest and instead pushing their own American
| ideologies.
|
| More and more countries should reject American tech companies
| that seek to interfere and spread their fcked up ideologies in
| the host country.
| johnea wrote:
| Eliminating goggle, apple and meta could only be regarded as a
| good thing...
|
| Throw out bozo too for the win-win...
| autoexec wrote:
| The EU is free to pass laws preventing gatekeepers and insisting
| on interoperability requirements and Apple is free to refuse to
| do that and not offer their non-competitive gatekeeping products
| in the EU.
|
| There's zero reason to think that this will mean the EU won't
| have a tech market. It just won't have one that includes Apple
| products which refuse to follow the law. Seems like a massive win
| for the EU, and because Apple is the one deciding to pull their
| products rather than follow the law they can't really complain
| either, so win/win I guess.
| cheptsov wrote:
| Except EU doesn't have big tech.
| dijit wrote:
| Anything that gets close gets bought or killed by non-
| european giants.
|
| Tencent buys basically all game companies, microsoft buys
| basically all communication companies (skype, nokia come to
| mind), google buys basically everything. Even ARM is owned by
| Softbank after starting out in the UK.
|
| The Automotive industry and ASML are just about the only
| things resistant to this because they're so large already;
| Automotive acts a lot like big tech. (a clear similarity I
| saw after being in BMW R&D and Googles Zurich and SF
| campuses)
| autoexec wrote:
| Not on Apple's scale, but with apple pulling products from
| the market, this opens the door for someone else to step up
| and fill that highly profitable gap in the market apple
| abandoned. I really hope that they do. The more players there
| are in the game from other countries the better off we'll all
| be.
| ffhhj wrote:
| This could be the beginning of big tech for them, another
| winning situation.
| bamboozled wrote:
| How important "big tech" though? Honestly ? It's even an
| insidious sounding name.
| bamboozled wrote:
| How important "big tech" though? Honestly ? It's even an
| insidious sounding name.
|
| Big tech has caused a lot of problems for society. Echo
| chambers on social media, monopolistic behaviour, teen
| depression and addiction.
|
| We want the tech, without the grifting.
| amelius wrote:
| Yeah if people complain about government regulation then
| they've never seen a company regulate a market.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Apple is free to refuse to do that and not offer their non-
| competitive gatekeeping products in the EU.
|
| Currently Apple has been complying with the _letter_ of EU law
| (opening their devices to alternative app stores, etc) but not
| the _spirit_ of the law (leaving the EU market).
| CAP_NET_ADMIN wrote:
| Tech sector pretending that the regulations that worked in all
| the other sectors don't and won't apply to them or they will
| upend the human civilization.
| jmyeet wrote:
| No, it's not.
|
| This is a not-so-thinly veiled argument for deregulation and
| rolling back consumer protections, pretty much like the US. It's
| common to use scare tactics when it comes to regulations and
| taxes. "Companies will leave". "You're killing companies".
|
| As long as the EU has 400+ million consumers and they have
| spending power a market will exist and companies will adapt.
|
| Take the example from the article of CUDA being a monopoly. Well,
| NVidia obviously isn't a European company but it will comply if
| the EU forces them to open CUDA because the alternative is to
| close themselves off to Europe. That's never going to happen.
|
| Stop believing this "companies will leave" propaganda.
| ponorin wrote:
| You know you're out of good arguments when you have to defend the
| eX-Twitter's blue checkmark fiasco
| sensanaty wrote:
| Always hilarious reading big tech propaganda. They're trying oh
| so hard to convince people that, no, us harvesting every single
| iota of information and selling it to data brokers is _progress_
| , actually!!!
|
| The best part, for me, is while they flail and scream about the
| big bad EU, Japan and India are following suit with similar laws
| and regulations. It's only a matter of time until more and more
| countries start adopting these laws, and the tears from the
| techbros is going to be delicious.
|
| The website the "article" (aka paid propaganda piece) is hosted
| on has over 700 _partners_ that they 'd like me to consent to
| having my data shared with. It also completely shits itself
| thanks to uBlock, meaning it's made so terribly that blocking the
| privacy-invasive trackers they have breaks the whole site.
|
| If this is their idea of innovation, they can keep it and shove
| it where the sun don't shine.
| segasaturn wrote:
| Quite frankly I would prefer no tech industry over today's large,
| unregulated, monopolistic and aggressive tech industry. I feel
| like my life has not significantly improved at all relative to
| the enormous growth of the US tech industry in the last ten
| years, I'm no happier today than I was back then. Almost all of
| the gains have gone to a concentrated elite that I am not part
| of. Lately I've been looking at my phone and devices and other
| tech toys and asking "was any of this worth it?".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-26 23:04 UTC)