[HN Gopher] Meta says it wont sign Europe AI agreement, calling ...
___________________________________________________________________
Meta says it wont sign Europe AI agreement, calling it growth
stunting overreach
Author : rntn
Score : 65 points
Date : 2025-07-18 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| vanderZwan wrote:
| I admit that I am biased enough to immediately expect the AI
| agreement to be exactly what we need right now if this is how
| Meta reacts to it. Which I know is stupid because I genuinely
| have no idea what is in it.
| mhitza wrote:
| There seem to be 3 chapters of this "AI Code of Practice"
| https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-c...
| and it's drafting history https://digital-
| strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-code-pr...
|
| I did not read it yet, only familiar with the previous AI Act
| https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ .
|
| If I'd were to guess Meta is going to have a problem with
| chapter 2 of "AI Code of Practice" because it deals with
| copyright law, and probably conflicts with their (and others
| approach) of ripping text out of copyrighted material (is it
| clear yet if it can be called fair use?)
| jahewson wrote:
| > is it clear yet if it can be called fair use?
|
| Yes.
|
| https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-
| topic/digital/copyrig...
|
| Though the EU has its own courts and laws.
| dmbche wrote:
| District judge pretrial ruling on June 25th, I'd be
| surprised this doesn't get challenged soon in higher
| courts.
|
| And acquiring the copyrighted materials is still illegal -
| this is not a blanket protection for all AI training on
| copyrighted materials
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Even if it gets challenged successfully (and tbh I hope
| it does), the damage is already done. Blocking it at this
| stage just pulls up the ladder behind the behemoths.
|
| Unless the courts are willing to put injunctions on any
| model that made use of illegally obtained copyrighted
| material - which would pretty much be all of them.
| artursapek wrote:
| That's a very reddit bias
| paulddraper wrote:
| Interesting because OpenAI committed to signing
|
| https://openai.com/global-affairs/eu-code-of-practice/
| nkmnz wrote:
| OpenAI does direct business with government bodies. Not sure
| about Meta.
| somenameforme wrote:
| About 2 weeks ago OpenAI won a $200 million contract with the
| Defense Department. That's after partnering with Anduril for
| quote "national security missions." And all that is after the
| military enlisted OpenAI's "Chief Product Officer" and sent
| him straight to Lt. Colonel to work in a collaborative role
| directly with the military.
|
| And that's the sort of stuff that's not classified. There's,
| with 100% certainty, plenty that is.
| jahewson wrote:
| Sam has been very pro-regulation for a while now. Remember his
| "please regulate me" world tour?
| nozzlegear wrote:
| The biggest player in the industry welcomes regulation, in
| hopes it'll pull the ladder up behind them that much further. A
| tale as old as red tape.
| MPSFounder wrote:
| LMAO. Facebook is not big? Its founder is literally the
| sleaziest CEO out there. Cambridge Analytica, Myanmar,
| restrictions on Palestine, etc. Let us not fool ourselves.
| There are those online who seek to defend a master that could
| care less about them. Fascinating. My opinion on this: Europe
| lags behind in this field, and thus can enact regulations
| that profit the consumer. We need more of those in the US.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Meta isn't actually an AI company, as much as they'd like
| you to think they are now. They don't mind if nobody comes
| out as the big central leader in the space, they even
| release the weights for their models.
|
| Ask Meta to sign something about voluntarily restricting ad
| data or something and you'll get your same result there.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > Let us not fool ourselves. There are those online who
| seek to defend a master that could care less about them.
| Fascinating.
|
| How could you possibly infer what I said as a defense of
| Meta rather than an indictment of OpenAI?
|
| Fascinating.
| bboygravity wrote:
| Yeah well OpenAI also committed to being open.
|
| Why does anybody believe ANYthing OpenAI states?!
| sorokod wrote:
| Presumably it is Meta's growth they have in mind.
|
| Edit: from the linked in post, Meta is concerned about the growth
| of European companies:
|
| "We share concerns raised by these businesses that this over-
| reach will throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI
| models in Europe, and stunt European companies looking to build
| businesses on top of them."
| isodev wrote:
| Of course. Skimming over the AI Code of Practice, there is
| nothing particularly unexpected or qualifying as "overreach".
| Of course, to be compliant, model providers can't be shady
| which perhaps conflicts with Meta's general way of work.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Sure, but Meta saying "We share concerns raised by these
| businesses" translates to: It is in our and only our benefit
| for PR reasons to agree with someone, we don't care who they
| are, we don't give a fuck, but just this second it sounds great
| to use them for our lobbying.
|
| Meta has never done and will never do anything in the general
| public's interest. All they care about is harvesting more data
| to sell more ads.
| jahewson wrote:
| There's a summary of the guidelines here for anyone who is
| wondering:
|
| https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/introduction-to-code-of...
|
| It's certainly onerous. I don't see how it helps anyone except
| for big copyright holders, lawyers and bureaucrats.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I'm surprised that most of the comments here are siding with
| Europe blindly?
|
| Am I the only one who assumes by default that European regulation
| will be heavy-handed and ill conceived?
| andrepd wrote:
| So you're surprised that people are siding with Europe blindly,
| but you're "assuming by default" that you should side with Meta
| blindly.
|
| Perhaps it's easier to actually look at the points in
| contention to form your opinion.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I don't remember saying anything about blindly deciding
| things being a good thing.
| 9dev wrote:
| Maybe the others have put in a little more effort to understand
| the regulation before blindly criticising it? Similar to the
| GDPR, a lot of it is just common sense--if you don't think that
| "the market" as represented by global mega-corps will just sort
| it out, that is.
| Alupis wrote:
| Our friends in the EU have a long history of well-intentioned
| but misguided policy and regulations, which has led to
| stunted growth in their tech sector.
|
| Maybe some think that is a good thing - and perhaps it may be
| - but I feel it's more likely any regulation regarding AI at
| this point in time is premature, doomed for failure and
| unintended consequences.
| 9dev wrote:
| Yet at the same time, they also have a long history of very
| successful policy, such as the USB-C issue, but also the
| GDPR, which has raised the issue of our right to privacy
| all over the world.
|
| How long can we let AI go without regulation? Just
| yesterday, there was a report here on Delta using AI to
| squeeze higher ticket prices from customers. Next up is
| insurance companies. How long do you want to watch? Until
| all accountability is gone for good?
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I mean, getting USB-C to be usable on everything is like
| a nice-to-have, I wouldn't call it "very successful
| policy".
| 9dev wrote:
| It's just an example. The EU has often, and often
| successfully, pushed for standardisation to the benefit
| of end users.
| Alupis wrote:
| Which... has the consequences of stifling innovation.
| Regulations/policy is two-way street.
|
| Who's to say USB-C is the end-all-be-all connector? We're
| happy with it today, but Apple's Lightning connector had
| merit. What if two new, competing connectors come out in
| a few year's time?
|
| The EU regulation, as-is, simply will not allow a new
| technically superior connector to enter the market. Fast
| forward a decade when USB-C is dead, EU will keep it
| limping along - stifling more innovation along the way.
|
| Standardization like this is difficult to achieve via
| consensus - but via policy/regulation? These are the same
| governing bodies that hardly understand
| technology/internet. Normally standardization is achieved
| via two (or more) competing standards where one
| eventually "wins" via adoption.
|
| Well intentioned, but with negative side-effects.
| pembrook wrote:
| Hard disagree on both GDPR and USBC.
|
| If I had to pick a connector that the world was forced to
| use forever due to some European technocrat, I would not
| have picked usb-c.
|
| Hell, the ports on my MacBook are nearly shot just a few
| years in.
|
| Plus GDPR has created more value for lawyers and
| consultants than it has for EU citizens.
| ars wrote:
| > GDPR
|
| You mean that thing (or is that another law?) that forces me
| to find that "I really don't care in the slightest" button
| about cookies on every single page?
| junto wrote:
| No, the laws that ensures that private individuals have the
| power to know what is stored about them, change incorrect
| data, and have it deleted unless legally necessary to hold
| it - all in a timely manner and financially penalize
| companies that do not.
| cenamus wrote:
| That's not the GDPR.
| anonymousab wrote:
| That is malicious compliance with the law, and more or less
| indicative of a failure of enforcement against offenders.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I'm specifically referring to several comments that say they
| have not read the regulation at all, but think it must be
| good if Meta opposes it.
| lovich wrote:
| I'd side with Europe blindly over any corporation.
|
| The European government has at least a passing interest in the
| well being of human beings while that is not valued by the
| incentives that corporations live by
| rockemsockem wrote:
| All corporations that exist everywhere make worse decisions
| than Europe is a weirdly broad statement to make.
| xandrius wrote:
| If I've got to side blindly with any entity it is definitely
| not going to be Meta. That's all there is.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I mean, ideally no one would side blindly at all :D
| js4ever wrote:
| That's the issue with people's from a certain side of
| politics, they don't vote for something they always side /
| vote against something or someone ... Blindly. It's like
| pure hate going over reason. But it's ok they are the
| 'good' ones so they are always right and don't really need
| to think
| zeptonix wrote:
| Everything in this thread even remotely anti-EU-regulation is
| being extreme downvoted
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Yeah it's kinda weird.
|
| Feels like I need to go find a tech site full of people who
| actually like tech instead of hating it.
| vicnov wrote:
| It is fascinating. I assume that the tech world is further to
| the left, and that interpretation of "left" is very pro-AI
| regulation.
| satellite2 wrote:
| Well Europe haven't enacted policies actually breaking American
| monopolies until now.
|
| Europeans are still essentially on Google, Meta and Amazon for
| most of their browsing experiences. So I'm assuming Europe's
| goal is not to compete or break American moat but to force them
| to be polite and to preserve national sovereignty on important
| national security aspects.
|
| A position which is essentially reasonable if not too polite.
| almatabata wrote:
| > So I'm assuming Europe's goal is not to compete or break
| American moat but to force them to be polite and to preserve
| national sovereignty on important national security aspects.
|
| When push comes to shove the US company will always
| prioritize US interest. If you want to stay under the US
| umbrella by all means. But honestly it looks very short
| sighted to me.
|
| After seeing this news
| https://observer.co.uk/news/columnists/article/the-
| networker..., how can you have any faith that they will play
| nice?
|
| You have only one option. Grow alternatives. Fund your own
| companies. China managed to fund the local market without
| picking winners. If European countries really care, they need
| to do the same for tech.
|
| If they don't they will forever stay under the influence of
| another big brother. It is US today, but it could be China
| tomorrow.
| notyourwork wrote:
| What is bad about heavy handed regulation to protect citizens?
| hardlianotion wrote:
| He also said "ill conceived"
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| A good example of how this can end up with negative outcomes
| is the cookie directive, which is how we ended up with cookie
| consent popovers on every website that does absolutely
| nothing to prevent tracking and has only amounted to making
| lives more frustrating in the EU and abroad.
|
| It was a decade too late and written by people who were
| incredibly out of touch with the actual problem. The GDPR is
| a bit better, but it's still a far bigger nuisance for
| regular European citizens than the companies that still
| largely unhindered track and profile the same.
| chvid wrote:
| Why does meta need to sign anything? I thought the EU made laws
| that anyone operating in the EU including meta had to comply to.
| AIPedant wrote:
| It's not a law, it's a voluntary code of conduct given heft by
| EU endorsement.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> it 's a voluntary code of conduct_
|
| So then it's something completely worthless in the globally
| competitive cutthroat business world, that even the companies
| who signed won't follow, they just signed it for virtue
| signaling.
|
| If you want companies to actually follow a rule, you make it
| a law and you send their CEOs to jail when they break it.
|
| "Voluntary codes of conduct" have less value in the business
| world than toilet paper. Zuck was just tired of this
| performative bullshit and said the quiet part out loud.
| AIPedant wrote:
| No, it's a voluntary code of conduct so AI providers can
| start implementing changes before the conduct becomes a
| legal requirement, and so the code itself can be updated in
| the face of reality before legislators have to finalize
| anything. The EU does not have foresight into what
| reasonable laws should look like, they are nervous about
| unintended consequences, and they do not want to drive
| good-faith organizations away, they are trying to do this
| correctly.
|
| This cynical take seems wise and world-weary but it is just
| plain ignorant, please read the link.
| paul7986 wrote:
| The US, China and others are sprinting and thus spiraling towards
| the majority of society's destitution unless we force these
| billionaires hands; figure out how we will eat and sustain our
| economies where one person is now doing a white or blue (Amazon
| warehouse robots) collar job that ten use to do.
| lvl155 wrote:
| I have a strong aversion to Meta and Zuck but EU is pretty tone-
| deaf. Everything they do reeks of political and anti-American
| tech undertone.
| zeptonix wrote:
| They're career regulators
| zeptonix wrote:
| Good. As Elon says, the only thing the EU does export is
| regulation. Same geniuses that make us click 5 cookie pop-ups
| every webpage
| cenamus wrote:
| They didn't give us that. Mostly non-compliant websites gave us
| that.
| spongebobstoes wrote:
| that's deflecting responsibility. it's important to care
| about the actual effects of decisions, not hide behind the
| best case scenario. especially for governments.
|
| in this case, it is clear that the EU policy resulted in
| cookie banners
| dmix wrote:
| The the entire ad industry moved to fingerprinting, mobile ad
| kits, and 3rd party authentication login systems so it made
| zero difference even if they did comply. Google and Meta
| aren't worried about cookies when they have JS on every
| single website but it burdens every website user.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Trump literally started a trade war because the EU exports more
| to the US than vice versa.
| vicnov wrote:
| Just like GDPR, it will tremendously benefit big corporations
| (even if Meta is resistant) and those who are happy NOT to follow
| regulations (which is a lot of Chinese startups).
|
| And consumers will bear the brunt.
| ankit219 wrote:
| Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of
| the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of
| practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself.
| EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny
| if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would
| anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible
| case to sign something voluntary.
|
| One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is
| responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For
| open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].
|
| > GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright
| measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or
| application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-
| infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of
| their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another
| entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or
| validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon
| a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid
| the repeated generation of output that is identical or
| recognisably similar to protected works.
|
| [1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-
| commission-r...
| dmix wrote:
| Lovely when they try to regulate a burgeoning market before we
| have any idea what the market is going to look like in a couple
| years.
| remram wrote:
| The whole point of regulating it is to shape what it will
| look like in a couple of years.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Sounds like a reasonable guideline to me. Even for open source
| models, you can add a license term that requires users of the
| open source model to take "appropriate measures to avoid the
| repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably
| similar to protected works"
|
| This is European law, not US. Reasonable means reasonable and
| judges here are expected to weigh each side's interests and
| come to a conclusion. Not just a literal interpretation of the
| law.
| rchaud wrote:
| Kaplan's LinkedIn post says absolutely nothing about what is
| objectionable about the policy. I'm inclined to think "growth-
| stunting" could mean anything as tame as mandating user opt-in
| for new features as opposed to the "opt-out" that's popular among
| US companies.
| bilekas wrote:
| > It aims to improve transparency and safety surrounding the
| technology
|
| Really it does, especially with some technology run by so few
| which is changing things so fast..
|
| > Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement, calling it an
| overreach that will stunt growth
|
| God forbid critical things and impactful tech like this be
| created with a measured head, instead of this nonsense mantra of
| "Move fast and break things"
|
| Id really prefer NOT to break at least what semblance of society
| social media hasn't already broken.
| justlikereddit wrote:
| The more I read of the existing rule sets within the eurozone the
| less surprised I am that they make additional shit tier acts like
| this.
|
| What do surprise me is anything at all working with the existing
| rulesets, Effectively no one have technical competence and the
| main purpose of legislation seems to add mostly meaningless but
| parentally formulated complexities in order to justify hiring
| more bureaucrats.
|
| >How to live in Europe >1. Have a job that does not need state
| approval or licensing. >2. Ignore all laws, they are too verbose
| and too technically complex to enforce properly anyway.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-18 23:00 UTC)