I'll go ahead and be 'that guy' and say it: I don't want my country to become a startup nation. I don't want management methods and labor laws to be reformed, or modernized, or to mimic those in the US. I don't want corporation-friendly tax rates to be enacted. I don't want regulations to be lifted.
There are, give or take, 65 million people in France. (Incidentally, this number is also, give or take, the amount of Americans who live in the most abject poverty seen in the developed world.) Not everyone among these 65 million is fit to 'move fast and break things'. Not everyone wants to be flexible, adaptable or able to sell themselves in a world of fast hires and firings. Not everyone is a young and dynamic entrepreneur full of 'innovative' ideas (whatever that means). In short, not everyone is a twenty-to-thirty- something with a moderately high level of education and relative affinity with the tech world.
On the other hand, everyone needs a steady job to make a living. Everyone needs the healthcare, retirement plans and other benefits our current labor laws entail with that steady job. In short, everyone is a human being with basic human needs.
Startups have one thing in common - they tend to fail. Maybe your average HN reader will be able to endure the typical working conditions with no guarantee of a stable income in the future, but they are the exception, not the rule. It is preposterous to imagine that an entire country's labor laws and regulation should align with the needs of such a narrow demographic so that foreign investors will maybe deign to notice it and shower said demographic with money.
Yes, there are many things wrong with our current labor laws. Yes, maybe some regulations are needlessly tight and stifle the growth of blooming startups full of bright people. No, that does not mean the US as a 'startup nation' is an example to follow. And if that means the next Facebook or Instagram won't come from here, so be it. Many of these startups tend to produce services that are superficially useful at best or actively harmful at worst. We don't need them.
>The DMCA does not magically apply extra territorially.
>It’s applied through an established legal framework either through bilateral trade agreements or through WTO rules.
>The majority of copyright enforcement outside of the US has nothing to do with the DMCA but rather copyright holders using local legal frameworks.
That means essentially the same, in effect. Very few countries have copyright laws that do not align with interests of US lobbies. If any country with significant partnerships with the US decided to tell "screw the MPAA, you can now download anything from the Internet" to its citizens, the said lobbies would pressure the US government to pressure that country through the trade agreements you mentioned, until it relented. This is something that actually happened, during e.g. the TPB raid. We can argue about the moral legitimacy of such things but the reality of the matter is, it's all power plays.
>What I have a problem with is the EU essentially forcing compliance through extortion and sooner rather than later it will employ the companies that the GDPR was in spirit intended to protect us from to enforce it.
>I don’t see the EU being able to enforce the GDPR even internally without essentially deputizing the likes of Google, Amazon and PayPal to enforce it across all of their customers in order for them themselves to be compliant.
>Even with the fines possible under the GDPR the EU can not enforce compliance by targeting 100,000’s of small companies without going essentially bankrupt. It can however effectively target the big ones and worse make it impossible to operate within the EU without using their “GDPR complaint” platforms.
Three objections:
-The use of 'extortion' is rather harsh - the EU isn't out there to suck money out of the poor American startups, they simply want them to treat user data in a sensible manner. Now you may object to what is considered 'sensible' just like someone in Sweden (e.g. anakata) may object to what is considered a 'copyright breach' but the point here is that they are not looking to make money from fines. If you are found to be noncompliant you wouldn't get sued by troll lawyers, you'd get a couple warnings along with guidance on how to be compliant again. Fines are simply there to say they mean business so people stop ignoring the regulations like they've done with existing country-specific ones for the last decades. Again, power play.
-I really doubt Google, Amazon and Paypal would cut off the entire EU market just to avoid going through the hassle of setting up an updated privacy policy. The EU population is 500 million, way more than the US. More likely, they'll do a cost-benefit analysis that will tell them it's worth paying their lawyers to do the compliance work. It's not actually a big deal. Also, these tech giants do have offices in the EU, usually in Ireland, so it hardly counts as extraterritorial extortion.
-As for the poor hundreds of thousands of companies - well, see the above. They don't want your money, they want compliance. A fine is the absolute worst case if you are repeatedly and outrageously negligent on a very large scale. The most likely case, however, is that the GDPR isn't going to care about these startups because the European public doesn't care about them either. I don't mean to be harsh or condescending, but while lurking HNs and reading headlines about such and such service shutting its doors to European user, I couldn't recognize any of the names. No one is going to sue your ten-man startup that develops a niche/superficial app whose use cases only fit twice that many people to a EU court. It is far more likely that it will fail by itself, because that's what startups do. Should it grow, however, and be in a position to deal with enough customers data that negligence or nefarious intent when handling it would cause significant harm - that's where actual GDPR enforcement would step in.
You may say: 'but there is no guarantee', 'it's all very vague', 'this much vagueness only opens the way to corruption and preferential treatment', but that's mostly how most of the law is written here in the EU - clarity of intent and concision over clarity of wording and exhaustiveness. Against all odds I'd say it's working out pretty well for us and the vast majority of people here do not feel any defiance toward their institutions (at least when compared to other countries), so I feel confident in the GDPR's enforcement, jurisprudence cases and their future effects on the handling of my data. You may feel slighted that a foreign entity, its views and its legal culture are being imposed on you, though, and I understand. Again, power play.
Thanks for the tip! In return, for people who are into this sort of thing but don't know about these (listener-supported radio stations/streams and free music archives):
>After thinking long and hard about the GDPR the part that bothers me the most is the expectation from the EU that foreign entities enforce their regulations because the EU cannot bare the political consequences of doing it themselves.
That sort of thing happens all the time - except the US is usually the one coercing foreign entities. Remember the DMCA? ThePirateBay's raid in 2006? Or the Megaupload debacle? Or how Japan was pressured by the US to adopt stricter child pornography laws?
Note, I'm not saying the people behind these were supporting moral and noble causes that the US was wrong to clamp down on. I'm certainly not saying people should comply to China's expectations on free speech and flow of information. Simply, if you feel infuriated that a foreign power is enforcing its worldview and related regulations onto you, an American citizen, know that that's what literally everyone else has been experiencing for the last decades from the people you've put in power.
But then, what the EU is trying to enforce here - more power to Internet users, essentially - is fairly benign when compared to what other foreign powers would like to enforce. If there were matters of infuriation to be had on that account, I'd start with the Mariott debacle [1].
A lot of people here are basing their view of gender dynamics (such as women being given 'the upper-hand' and so on, whatever that means) on Tinder and related websites/apps. It may be worth mentioning that the vast majority of people on Earth (or even the developed world) do not, in fact, use any dating apps at all. Most people's flirting activities still take place in meatspace, with all the associated awkwardness. In fact, in many parts of the world there is no concept of 'dating' at all, or at least not in its codified form as happens in the US.
I respect your experience and it may be that women do have much more power than men in the online dating world - that doesn't mean it's not an extremely skewed representation of the actual social dynamics that happens between humans. This is due to the many cultural biases of the people who make these apps and the audience they're targeting, both of which being typically college-educated urban American millenials.
Not everyone's approach to relationships is like that of a college-educated urban American millenial.
The Space Merchants, co-written by Frederik Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth. Mind you, I was barely a teenager at the time I read it. But:
-It led me down the path to the realization that advertising in almost all of its current forms is unequivocally evil and has no credible moral justification in our current society. I have been running adblocking software on all of my devices (and that of my family's) and feel mildly disgusted every time I see an ad in the street or on the rare occasions I watch television.
-It opened my eyes on the fact that corporations having more power than governments is a huge deal, especially at times where government is often equivocated to 'lazy bureaucrats' and opposed to private companies' supposed 'efficiency' (but for whom?).
-It made me realize that environmentalists are not just some rambling, soft-natured and out-of-touch hippies but simply ringing the bell about how we are going to be royally screwed if we don't radically change our current consumption habits.
But the most shocking thing about that book is that it was written in 1952. There was no targeted advertising and tracking, no concerns about global warming, no oil peak. Critics at the time said it was witty and light-hearted, but far too much of a caricature to be taken seriously. Reading the thing more than 60 years later gives the whole experience a sour pang of irony.