[HN Gopher] EU pushes ahead with Big Tech antitrust enforcement
___________________________________________________________________
EU pushes ahead with Big Tech antitrust enforcement
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 75 points
Date : 2025-03-21 19:12 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| Archive link: https://archive.is/dpHIP
| linusg789 wrote:
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/eu-pushes-ahead-wi...
| bilbo0s wrote:
| At this point, weakening any American tech company really is a
| matter of data sovereignty for Europe. That may not be the main
| reason all this started, but I think recent months have
| underscored Europe's need, and supercharged Europe's
| determination in this regard. I'd expect significant changes in
| EU policies regarding tech companies going forward. Mostly
| calibrated to decrease American dominance in the sector.
| blibble wrote:
| personally, I think the way to deal with this is the way the
| Chinese have done it (very successfully)
|
| if US "gatekeepers" wish to operate in the European market, it
| will be under license, with a joint venture that is majority
| controlled by European shareholders, with technology transfer
| agreements
|
| essentially: using their own greed against them
|
| and if they don't like it, they can operate somewhere else
| apwell23 wrote:
| Chinese do it to steal IP from their joint venture
| blibble wrote:
| I would relish the irony of having Google, Microsoft and
| Facebook complain about IP theft
|
| whilst their AI crawlers plunder any and all copyrighted
| material ever placed on the internet
| nonethewiser wrote:
| But other search engines already crawl Google's websites.
| If we want to call that IP theft. The alleged IP theft
| against Google would be new and of a different kind than
| what Google is committing.
|
| Again, if we want to call web crawling IP theft. Which
| seems dubious.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| This.
|
| These are the kinds of hypocrisies that I'm talking about
| when I say that American companies from Amazon to Tesla
| are also responsible for the worsening fracture between
| the US and EU. Trump and Vance should not escape
| responsibility for their share of this fiasco. But this
| transatlantic break is something that was very much a
| team effort. And as a team we in the US have been,
| perhaps unwittingly, working towards this hostility for a
| long time.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| You cant have this without a great firewall.
| slt2021 wrote:
| firewall not needed, just need to remove the way for US
| companies to make money from advertising in Europe.
|
| as long as ads money gravy train to USA is stopped, USA
| companies will leave themselves / or comply
| nonethewiser wrote:
| How do you stop Europeans from accessing the services?
| vkou wrote:
| You stop the firms from getting paid, not Europeans from
| accessing those services.
|
| They'll very quickly figure out how to become compliant.
| slt2021 wrote:
| accessing service is a cost center, no need to block
| service.
|
| The revenue stream is European companies paying US
| companies for ads (or rather European firms paying
| Irish/Dutch subsidiaries of Gogel/Insta/FB for ads).
| vkou wrote:
| You absolutely can, because the companies providing tech
| services need to get _paid_ , either from local companies
| buying ad space, or directly from their users, and you can
| just block payment to non-compliant firms.
|
| Given America's hostile stance to its former allies, joint
| ownership and technology transfer agreements as a condition
| for its firms operating in the EU market sounds more than
| reasonable. If US firms aren't happy with this, they can
| always lobby to impose similar restrictions on foreign big
| tech firms operating in the US...
|
| _If there were any_.
|
| The problem with flipping the table and starting a trade
| war is everyone loses... And the correct response to
| someone starting lose-lose games is tit-for-tat. Maybe big
| tech firms will think twice before throwing their support
| for an anti-trade candidate. (They absolutely _could_ have
| used their position in media to stop this insanity, if they
| wanted to, but now we all have to lie in the bed they 've
| made.)
| jimnotgym wrote:
| How was the US planning to ban Tiktok without a great
| firewall? I presume they would demand that internet
| companies don't route their traffic. Stop them locally
| caching data etc.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Simply make Google and Apple take it down from their app
| stores, and it would be de facto banned for 95+% of
| users.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| America has a Great Firewall, it's called
| AppleMobileFileIntegrity.kext[0]. The TikTok ban relied
| heavily on the fact that a social network practically
| _needs_ to have a mobile app and thus prohibited them
| from having it. It was less of a "ban TikTok" bill and
| more of a "government gets to kick apps off the App
| Store" bill.
|
| Yes, you could use TikTok on the web; but... have you
| ever _tried_ using TikTok 's web interface? It's an
| absolute joke. And on the other end, shipping a webapp
| subjects you to all sorts of consumer-friendly technical
| interference like ad blockers and de-cluttering that is
| intended to make the social network serve the user and
| not itself.
|
| [0] On Android, TikTok did ship an APK to evade being
| kicked off Google Play; but that's only slightly more
| effective than telling people to go run AltStore on a Mac
| or PC to dev-sign a TikTok IPA that will be missing half
| the features because Apple doesn't allow certain
| permissions to be provisioned on free dev accounts.
| fpoling wrote:
| US surely can remove TikTok from the mobile stores and can
| even force Apple/Google to release an OS update disabling
| TikTok. That will be sufficient.
| maciejw wrote:
| Maybe something as simple as turnover tax would work
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Yeah. I think regulations of that nature may be coming.
|
| I think in the US, we've put ourselves in a really bad spot.
| Most will likely blame Trump/Vance, and they definitely
| deserve their share. But the American tech industry has been
| contributing its quota towards this break for a long time as
| well. And we should be honest about that.
|
| Also, I know that no one will want to hear this on HN, but
| workers at American companies have also not made us any
| friends in Europe. There is a strong undercurrent of
| resentment due to some American workers not having the
| ability to maintain a humble and collaborative demeanor
| online or IRL.
| blibble wrote:
| > I think in the US, we've put ourselves in a really bad
| spot. Most will likely blame Trump/Vance, and they
| definitely deserve their share. But the American tech
| industry has been contributing its quota towards this break
| for a long time as well. And we should be honest about
| that.
|
| I think that televised meeting with Zelensky was a wake-up
| call to many people, including myself
|
| we can't allow ourselves to become any more dependent on
| the country that elected this regime, and not once (because
| a mistake can be forgiven), but twice
|
| the current dependency also needs to be reduced to ensure
| the long survival of our societies and way of life
| dmix wrote:
| The only countries that do this in the world are China and
| Iran. Russia and India do it partially, such as rules for
| storing data domestically so they can snoop on it.
|
| Apple has a company called GCBD running their iCloud so the
| Chinese gov can access it
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-
| ce...
|
| Google, LinkedIn, Uber, etc left China. Meta refused to do a
| joint venture so never entered the market. The only big
| American names who did a joint venture were Apple and Tesl
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| TikTok?
| dmix wrote:
| There is no law in America requiring domestic joint
| ventures.
|
| The Tiktok law gives the US gov power to ban social media
| companies controlled by a "U.S. foreign adversary" (only
| 6 countries) and offers the chance for divestment, but
| doesn't require moving operations to the US. https://en.w
| ikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| The first sector this happens is defence industry, one of the
| US of A's biggest exports. EU already decided that weapons
| will need to be at least 65% manufactured in Europe:
| https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-freeze-us-multi-
| billion-d...
| jimnotgym wrote:
| That's what happens when the USA won't let European
| countries buy the weapons they want
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Really, it's a matter of overall sovereignty, given where the
| chips have fallen in the US.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I think big tech deserves anti trust regulation and action
| because it is good for a competitive market that actually puts
| customers first. They're too big and powerful and abuse their
| power to hurt fair competition. But I think the type of
| aggressive action you're talking about - and the motivation to
| do it solely to weaken America - will open up a lot of
| destructive actions back and forth.
|
| America choosing to spend less money on Ukraine, pushing for
| resolution to a conflict that has resulted in mass deaths for
| Ukrainian males, and renegotiating tariffs doesn't deserve the
| kind of hysterical overreaction I'm seeing from Europeans. In
| the end, if it escalates to open warfare on each other's
| economies rather than a reset of trade agreements, it'll damage
| both the EU and US to China's benefit.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| I think EU will be fine. There are plenty other countries to
| trade with, including China.
|
| China is actually less hostile to EU than US at this point.
| bhelkey wrote:
| > Mostly calibrated to decrease American dominance in the
| sector.
|
| If the EU takes actions specifically designed to hurt the US,
| do you think the US wouldn't respond in kind? This is
| ironically similar to Trump imposing tariffs on Canada and
| acting surprised when they imposed tariffs in response.
|
| The relatively free trade between the US and the EU has been
| mutually beneficial. The number #1 selling car in the EU is
| made by an American company [1]. And the US is a huge market
| for luxury European cars [2].
|
| Everyone is better off by being able to choose between a
| European or an American car rather than being forced to buy
| domestic.
|
| [1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/europe/2023-full-year-
| euro...
|
| [2]
| https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/article/detail/T0438942EN...
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > If the EU takes actions specifically designed to hurt the
| US, do you think the US wouldn't respond in kind?
|
| The US has started the trade war against EU already, with
| tariffs on steeel/aluminum - assuming they are still active,
| Trump seemingly lacks cojones to keep tariffs up once others
| retaliate.
|
| Not to say the active hostility against EU, by threatening to
| annex Greenland (which is currently a Danish territory), open
| support for Putin in his aggression against Ukraine (which
| threatens Europe) and so on.
|
| At this point the US should be seen as a hostile foreign
| nation by EU. EU is doing well by tightening the screws
| against US tech giants. Those companies are possibly a threat
| to essential infrastructure, and should be treated as such
| too.
| bhelkey wrote:
| > The US has started the trade war against EU already
|
| On March 12th the US imposed a tariff on steel/aluminum,
| the EU responded with an tariff of total equivalent value
| on US steel/aluminum/agricultural products [1].
|
| This is the core of my point, the US created a tariff
| against the EU, the EU responded in kind.
|
| > the active hostility against EU, by threatening to annex
| Greenland...[Trump's] aggression against Ukraine
|
| Trump has said concerning things about both Ukraine and
| Greenland and I don't want to downplay that. That being
| said, the US is currently sending both weapons and
| intelligence to Ukraine [2].
|
| In fact, he US has given Ukraine more aid than the EU and
| all of its member states combined (though less than all of
| Europe combined) [3].
|
| Being the largest supplier of aid, sending weapons and
| sharing intelligence with Ukraine is clearly not siding
| with Russia.
|
| [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/q
| anda_...
|
| [2] https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5324926/u-s-
| resumes-ukr...
|
| [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
| nico42 wrote:
| It's also a response to the failure of the US to regulate their
| own companies and apply their own antitrust laws.
| MPSFounder wrote:
| In any other setting, I would agree. However, most of us here
| in the US are very unhappy with big tech. The lack of
| regulation is harming me as a consumer, but as a lobbying-based
| economy, America affords consumers little to no power. The EU
| might clearly favor their industries, and be overly aggressive
| in tech where they lack the momentum America has. The lack of
| any consumer-oriented support in the US makes me root for the
| other guy. Sometimes, E2E or USBC for the iphone is something I
| would argue most Americans are in favor for, but big tech
| refuses to implement to milk the sheep. Famously, lightning was
| only kept by Apple for so long because of the revenue it
| generates as a proprietary cable, despite the abundance of usbc
| cables. That type of monopolistic practices should be shamed,
| but we need the EU given America refuses to regulate big Tech.
| eikenberry wrote:
| Maybe this will finally see European software engineers getting
| better compensation. The companies might avoid it if they move
| quickly as the US tech industry is a garbage fire at the moment
| (from an employee perspective) but that will eventually subside
| and they'll be competing against US companies again for top
| talent.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| This could lead to more actions by the Trump admin administration
| against European countries.
|
| Not anti-trust but Cook called Trump to complain about the Irish
| tax outcome where Apple has to pay something like $14b
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4d75zl212o
|
| What happens if tech companies, long seemingly supporting
| Democrats are wooed by Trump with promises of bullying Europe
| with more tariffs to stop them from going after American
| companies.
|
| This would result in tech companies supporting Republicans due to
| the finanical benefit while controlling the messaging on their
| platforms
|
| For example "Instagram and Threads will start recommending
| political content to users in the US." After a few years of
| either limiting it or providing an option(? Unsure)
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > What happens if tech companies, long seemingly supporting
| Democrats are wooed by Trump with promises of bullying Europe
| with more tariffs to stop them from going after American
| companies.
|
| This has already happened. There is just friction between
| executives and company culture.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Have previous administrations been as aggressive against
| other countries due to their policies?
|
| For example with South Africa
|
| " "The United States won't stand for it, we will act," Trump
| added. "Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to
| South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has
| been completed!"
|
| https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/02/11/explainer-
| underst...
|
| Even if tech companies wanted this and previous admins tried
| diplomatic pressure or discussions I don't believe it was to
| the level that we are seeing now.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Im sorry, I dont understand your point. I'm talking about
| Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, etc. all appealing to Trump to
| fight back against EU regulation and continuing to advance
| their interests globally. They are all very much in favor
| of Trump's view of EU regulation on US tech companies.
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| Speaking as a South African, that article was very
| interesting and didn't seem to misrepresent anything that
| I'm aware of, but I'm also not especially knowledgeable in
| these areas. I don't support this law myself, but as
| mentioned by the article it's not as bad as Trump makes
| out.
|
| However, there is some context which I feel is missing from
| your post, in particular how it's a bit strange that Trump
| even cared to politically attack South Africa.
|
| We're pretty small fry from an economic output point of
| view, not nothing, but a pretty small market which although
| it has great potential, has been somewhat stagnant largely
| due to incompetence and corruption by our government.
|
| Something that would have however gotten notice in the US
| is that we formally filed a case in ICC against Israel for
| human rights violations (for the record, I would not
| personally speak in support of Israel or Palestine).
|
| Something else that is also likely a factor (and is
| mentioned in the article) is that Musk was born here. Not
| mentioned in the article is that he has unequivocally
| stated he has no love for South Africa. If I recall
| correctly, his family left the country while he was still
| in school, where he was bullied.
|
| It would be pretty natural that he has some emotional
| connection to here and would pay some attention to what's
| happening, at the very least to things which would
| reinforce his existing world view on us.
|
| Another interesting thing that happened in the last couple
| of years is that Starlink looked into operating here, but
| decided not to when the government said a precondition was
| that a significant percentage be black owned (in practice
| many companies who adhere to this essentially view it as a
| form of tax where they're obligated to give a portion of
| their company away).
|
| Our BBBEE laws which dictate that you can't do business
| with the government unless your own company and all your
| suppliers (and their suppliers, ad infinitum) have enough
| black ownership is quite contentious (and a form racial of
| discrimination in my books) has resulted in many
| international investors simply walking away, Starlink
| amongst them, and I don't blame them.
|
| But It's exactly the kind of thing Musk would no doubt have
| heard about with Starlink and if I were Musk it would have
| peeved me quite a bit, possibly enough to point us out to
| Trump who's always looking for a punching bag to reinforce
| his existing world views on injustices.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Have previous administrations been as aggressive against
| other countries due to their policies? For example with
| South Africa
|
| Yes! And in fact, funny your example is South Africa
| because in the past there was action against South Africa
| when it was run by the apartheid government! Including but
| not limited to Congress passing the Comprehensive Anti-
| Apartheid Act of 1986, which called for an end to apartheid
| and placed economic sanctions on South Africa. The bill
| prohibited the import of South African goods, the sale of
| arms and military equipment to the nation, and any new
| investment.
|
| I believe Europe wasn't as activist against the South
| African apartheid government.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
| apartheid_movement_in_the...
| apwell23 wrote:
| "The original decision covered the period from 1991 to 2014.
| The European Commission is trying to retroactively change the
| rules and ignore that, as required by international tax law,
| our income was already subject to taxes in the US."
|
| how is this not trade war by EU. They are making apple pay
| taxes from 3 decades ago?
| bigyabai wrote:
| Apple sold devices in the EU without paying the requisite
| local taxes by misrepresenting sales figures and lobbying for
| exemption through Irish law. They knew that their accounting
| was dishonest and continued with it anyways. Simply having to
| pay the taxes you owe isn't a trade war.
|
| The FT article is much more clear about why exactly it is
| harmful:
|
| https://archive.ph/gGC2C
| vkou wrote:
| Since ~January of this year, international law doesn't mean
| anything anymore.
|
| But if you think it's still relevant, tariffs against Canada
| violate international law, perhaps you should get in touch
| with the US government to have them lifted. Lead by example,
| and all that.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > perhaps you should get in touch with your government to
| have them lifted. Lead by example, and all that.
|
| ok i will reach out to Indian govt about usa's canada
| tariffs
| potatototoo99 wrote:
| They broke the law, Apple and Ireland. Just because Ireland
| is a country it doesn't mean it can't be subject to laws.
|
| > "Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland is
| required to recover". The European Commission found that
| corporate tax rates as low as 0.005% paid by the tech giant
| represented an unlawful subsidy. Specifically because other
| companies were not permitted to obtain the same tax
| arrangements. As a consequence Apple must pay EUR13 billion,
| excluding interest, to the Irish Treasury.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Did they really break the law? I'm not a fan of Apple and
| their aggressive walled gardens and general hostility. But
| I feel like the tax optimization with Ireland is well known
| to everyone and wasn't an issue until now. It seems
| dishonest to go back and demand retroactive taxes
| afterwards. And I bet they aren't the only company in this
| situation so are they being singled out unfairly?
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| >Did they really break the law?
|
| According to the EU's highest court they did and that's
| all that matters. I think you're trying to say that that
| if you or the US believes that the EU is wrong regardless
| of EU decisions the US is justified in attacking.
|
| My original comment is pointing out that the current
| admin seems willing to bully other countries using
| international trade.
|
| So the EU goes after US tech companies, US tech companies
| flock to Trump, Trump attacks the EU
| apwell23 wrote:
| > According to the EU's highest court they did and that's
| all that matters
|
| Its like saying Euros shouldn't be upset by american
| tariffs because they are legal per american laws and
| thats all that matters.
|
| I still don't get why Euros are so freaking upset that
| USA decided it wants to operate differently. Why doesn't
| usa have that right.
|
| edit: for butthurt euros calling me names below, Apple's
| claim is that The EU did not have specific rules in place
| prohibiting Ireland's tax policies when Apple benefited
| from them. It even won its appeal on EU court in 2020 on
| that basis.
|
| Its time for countries like India to claw back taxes that
| european companies didn't pay during colonization.
| randunel wrote:
| Your comment before you edited it was
|
| > USA can makeup whatever laws it wants and apply them
| retroactively too
|
| Which shows how little understanding you have of this
| topic. This isn't a new law, at all. The tax has always
| been owed, because state aid / state subsidy has always
| been illegal in the EU. No new law is being applied
| retroactively here.
|
| A debt needs to be paid.
| Sloowms wrote:
| It's not a retroactive law. It's a law not being
| followed. If you decide to not file your taxes properly
| and need to pay all the tax you owe after getting found
| out the law did not change.
| bgnn wrote:
| Correct term is Europeans, not Euros.
|
| I think you are ignorant about law in general and
| European institutions. European Court of Justice is
| established in 1952. European Economic Community is
| established in 1957. Ireland joined the European
| communities in 1972.
|
| The court order is just, as Apple didn't pay fair amount
| of taxes from whole EU operations. This makes it an EU
| matter. They just need to pay their taxes.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > It seems dishonest to go back and demand retroactive
| taxes afterwards.
|
| Quite the opposite. It would be an insult to law abiding
| companies if they didn't demand back taxes in exchange
| for market access.
| randunel wrote:
| State aid to private companies is outright illegal in the
| EU. It's a matter of finding out how far back this
| continuous state aid goes to figure out the total.
|
| You only get caught at the end of the illegal activity,
| but you're responsible for all of it.
|
| My EU country has the concept of "done continuously" to
| any criminal code article, including tax evasion and all
| other provisions, and I'm pretty sure it's an EU-wide
| concept, where penalties go up by a percentage if the
| crimes were done continuously over a period of time. So
| breaking the law continuously also matters, not only at
| the time of getting caught.
|
| What I don't agree with is Apple getting fined. Apple
| needs to pay the proper taxes for the entire period of
| getting state aid, but Ireland should get the penalty for
| subsidising a private company, am infringement procedure
| should determine that.
| Sloowms wrote:
| They broke the law indeed. It was a legally untested tax
| structure that was found to be illegal all along. This
| also is not the first time the European courts have told
| member states to stop preferential treatment in tax
| deals.
|
| It's funny that you say it was well known to everyone and
| also wasn't an issue. It was well known because precisely
| because it was an issue.
|
| If a company and country are dishonest about the tax
| deals they illegally make it's pretty dishonest to call
| it dishonest to demand the taxes are back payed.
|
| This ruling applies to all the illegal tax schemes
| European countries have been using. So there are
| definitely other companies getting the bill as well.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| 1. Which international tax law?
|
| 2. It's not a new tax that was applied retroactively it was
| an EC ruling about how Apple took advantage of the situation.
| Which was later affirmed by the highest EU court.
| dybber wrote:
| They will only get a financial benefit if Trump is successful
| in convincing EU to change their policies, but I think it is
| pretty little chance of that happening.
|
| EU policies will be decided by the europeans, and if the US
| tries to coerce EU e.g. with tariffs, EU will use it's
| "economic bazooka" the Anti-Coercion Instrument which will
| target some of the same US tech companies.
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/7303e57e-67ca-477a-8d00-8d5213f71...
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Yep.
|
| In the US, we kind of worked ourselves into a box.
|
| More hostile action from Trump will only deepen European
| resolve.
|
| I don't understand what we were thinking? There's like 600
| million people in Europe. All of whom were perfectly content
| to sleep in the then current global order.
|
| Why take a stick and poke a sleeping lion like that? For the
| life of me I'll never figure that out?
| graeme wrote:
| This is one of the guiding documents of the current
| administration.
|
| https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/res
| e...
| thfuran wrote:
| I've only just started reading that, but right in the
| first few paragraphs it says that the main problem is
| that USD is overvalued, and their proposed solution isn't
| inflationary. I'm kind of confused.
| bsaul wrote:
| The only rational i've got to explain trump policy, is that
| he's been supported by non-western countries to destroy the
| western world one way or another.
|
| There is unfortunately no other explanation i can think of
| at this point. Stupidity of this level isn't enough. You
| need a strong incentive to suicide us all ( because neither
| europe nor the US are going to win anything with this kind
| of war. Only our competitors will)
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Remember he's done business on the order of billions. Now
| he's responsible in some way for a trillion-dollar
| economy. He's in way over his head, acting like he's one
| company in a marketplace and he can stiff customers,
| vendors and other businesses like there's a limitless
| market. Instead of only like 100 countries in the world.
|
| In way over his head. Clueless how to behave, or what
| 'winning' or 'losing' might look like.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It doesn't work if Trump has already put tarrifs on the EU
| though. When you fire a gun, it ceases to be a deterrent.
| NotPractical wrote:
| > This would result in tech companies supporting Republicans
|
| People often forget that these companies care about nothing but
| money. This isn't an anti-capitalist rant or anything; that's
| just how the world works. As publicly traded corporations, they
| are _obligated_ to their shareholders to always make decisions
| that are best for the company, no matter what. That would
| include supporting Republicans, if necessary.
|
| It doesn't matter how many angry engineers vent on Twitter
| about how their favorite megacorps are now Trump supporters.
| These decisions come from the very top.
| hello_computer wrote:
| Yes!
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It is fascinating how sentiment on here has changed in the last
| few months. If you look back on any of the many threads on this
| in the last year you see a much more staunch defence of the tech
| companies. The world sure has changed
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-21 23:02 UTC)