EU to unveil landmark law curbing power of tech giants(dw.com)
dw.com
EU to unveil landmark law curbing power of tech giants
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-to-unveil-landmark-law-curbing-power-of-tech-giants/a-55939862
386 comments
> 4. Match Group
> Match group is lucky they're not getting much attention, but they own all major dating apps. They need a bit of smacking.
I had never heard that name and just googled them. HOOOOLLLYYY COW!!!!!!! That's what I call monopoly.
> Match group is lucky they're not getting much attention, but they own all major dating apps. They need a bit of smacking.
I had never heard that name and just googled them. HOOOOLLLYYY COW!!!!!!! That's what I call monopoly.
Bumble, Coffee Meets Bagel, Grindr, Once, Happn, and a few other apps that are probably unique to Europe come to mind as alternatives just from the top of my head.
Doesn't seem terribly monopolized to me, especially if you factor in that one person often uses multiple of those apps.
Doesn't seem terribly monopolized to me, especially if you factor in that one person often uses multiple of those apps.
In theory, yes, that's true. That is, if we completely ignore the Pareto principle(which I'm willing to bet is in full effect here). Looking at what they have on their portfolio(Tinder, okcupid, match, etc.), I think it's safe to assume they own 80-90% of the market share. That is pretty close to monopoly if you ask me.
> That is, if we completely ignore the Pareto principle(which I'm willing to bet is in full effect here)
That's exactly why I mentioned people using multiple apps, which lessens the effect quite a bit. Users on dating apps are also rather fickle, and will jump to the next best app once that becomes available, so even with a big market share, there isn't much lock-in and there isn't much of an outsized benefit to the position as a market leader. E.g. in the European market Bumble appeared a few years after Tinder and within 1-2 years basically everybody that I know that used Tinder before at least tried out Bumble and many continue to use both or switched outright. Of course that's very anecdotal, but current statistics for number of US users for both apps paint a similar picture[0].
> I think it's safe to assume they own 80-90% of the market share. That is pretty close to monopoly if you ask me.
In 2016, they apparently owned 25% of market share[1], which is pretty far away from a monopoly if you ask me.
It seems a bit weird to me to group them together with Alphabet/Facebook/Apple. The others span far more markets, and have much much stronger lock-in effect which they can unfairly leverage to push other products. Compared to that, Match Group is laughable.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/826778/most-popular-dati...
[1]: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/06/07/why-match-group-st...
That's exactly why I mentioned people using multiple apps, which lessens the effect quite a bit. Users on dating apps are also rather fickle, and will jump to the next best app once that becomes available, so even with a big market share, there isn't much lock-in and there isn't much of an outsized benefit to the position as a market leader. E.g. in the European market Bumble appeared a few years after Tinder and within 1-2 years basically everybody that I know that used Tinder before at least tried out Bumble and many continue to use both or switched outright. Of course that's very anecdotal, but current statistics for number of US users for both apps paint a similar picture[0].
> I think it's safe to assume they own 80-90% of the market share. That is pretty close to monopoly if you ask me.
In 2016, they apparently owned 25% of market share[1], which is pretty far away from a monopoly if you ask me.
It seems a bit weird to me to group them together with Alphabet/Facebook/Apple. The others span far more markets, and have much much stronger lock-in effect which they can unfairly leverage to push other products. Compared to that, Match Group is laughable.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/826778/most-popular-dati...
[1]: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/06/07/why-match-group-st...
Sure, it's not the same as Google/Facebook but you get my point. I spent 8 and a half years developing a CRM for mobile applications and it's not like I haven't poked my nose into the petabytes of data. The reality is that people(understand companies) are fighting for app time, that is how much time you spend in their app. Personally I've never used and never will use a dating app for a million and one reasons but I know plenty of people that do and have wasted money on them. Having spoken to them, they do spend most of their time on tinder/okcupid. As far as minutes in app goes, the Match group is unmatched(no pun intended). I'm sure it would raise some eyebrows, if people knew they were spending that much money on one company. I have a friend who has subscription to all of those. I wonder if he realizes that he is spending more on somewhat twisted services offered by a single company than I am on the countless gcp services I use for my personal projects.
[deleted]
Dating apps are such a monoculture now, and it’s almost certain this is why
or maybe it's just that we've hit upon what works given current technology and human psychhology.
Works for who? Sure, there are success stories of online dating, but I wager a large amount that most people's experiences with them are negative.
Negative compared to what, though? A fictional imagined experience? Other kinds of dating? That's not a fair comparison.
Here’s a fun fact. If you read the Match Group annual reports, they’ll often say that their biggest US competitor is Facebook, Instagram and other social media sites.
...so duopoly??
...so duopoly??
Badoo?
> For Google, the biggest problem is their bundling of Chrome, YouTube, Gmail if you want to have Google certified android phone that has the Google play store.
I think it's much more than that.
Google makes apps and services. Google makes the platforms apps run on (Android, ChromeOS, Chrome [web + electron], Stadia). Google makes the services used to monetize apps (AdSense). Google makes the services used to distribute apps (Google Play Store, Stadia). Google makes the services used to find apps and services (Google Search, Google Maps, Google Play Store). And that's not to mention the deployment platforms, communication platforms, payment platforms, analytics platforms, development tools, content hosting services, etc.
They have so much control that you can't hope to compete with any of their established apps or services - no matter how much better your own product might be. All you can to is try to make something new and get big enough that Google can't take you on directly.
I think it's much more than that.
Google makes apps and services. Google makes the platforms apps run on (Android, ChromeOS, Chrome [web + electron], Stadia). Google makes the services used to monetize apps (AdSense). Google makes the services used to distribute apps (Google Play Store, Stadia). Google makes the services used to find apps and services (Google Search, Google Maps, Google Play Store). And that's not to mention the deployment platforms, communication platforms, payment platforms, analytics platforms, development tools, content hosting services, etc.
They have so much control that you can't hope to compete with any of their established apps or services - no matter how much better your own product might be. All you can to is try to make something new and get big enough that Google can't take you on directly.
To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate. How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities.
Android was motivated to compete with Apple. The Play Store and Chrome Web Store required platform ownership for integration and optimization. Intertwined services demand mutual optimization. Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible. Most only exist because ads pay for them and they may contribute to improving ads.
Android was motivated to compete with Apple. The Play Store and Chrome Web Store required platform ownership for integration and optimization. Intertwined services demand mutual optimization. Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible. Most only exist because ads pay for them and they may contribute to improving ads.
> To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate.
Who knows? How many alternatives died or resolved themselves to relative obscurity because Google managed to get a strangle hold on the market before their competitors could establish themselves?
Maybe Windows Phone would still exist. Maybe we'd be much further along with a truly open mobile Linux platform.
Maybe Firefox wouldn't be slowly fading into obscurity. Maybe Opera would be one of the top browsers. Maybe Edge would still be developing its own browser tech instead of just reskinning Chromium.
Maybe OSM would be the most popular map provider. Maybe Vimeo would be the go-to platform for video hosting. Maybe people would prefer store their files on Box. Maybe ads would have never have become such a popular monetization strategy and we might have seen some new and innovative strategies in its place.
Who knows?
Who knows? How many alternatives died or resolved themselves to relative obscurity because Google managed to get a strangle hold on the market before their competitors could establish themselves?
Maybe Windows Phone would still exist. Maybe we'd be much further along with a truly open mobile Linux platform.
Maybe Firefox wouldn't be slowly fading into obscurity. Maybe Opera would be one of the top browsers. Maybe Edge would still be developing its own browser tech instead of just reskinning Chromium.
Maybe OSM would be the most popular map provider. Maybe Vimeo would be the go-to platform for video hosting. Maybe people would prefer store their files on Box. Maybe ads would have never have become such a popular monetization strategy and we might have seen some new and innovative strategies in its place.
Who knows?
what i hear you saying is "maybe we'd be stuck with half-assed shitty map software, half-assed shitty browsers, and half-assed shitty video sharing services".
Funny, since both Google Maps and YouTube were acquired, not developed by the monopoly Google.
If anything Google made Maps shittier over time (similarly to how they've managed to fuck over their own GMail offering).
As for Chrome, that was originally developed by KDE devs first and Apple second into a modern browser engine. The innovation part was theirs. Google just adopted it wholesale in the beggining, and started monopolizing its steering...
If anything Google made Maps shittier over time (similarly to how they've managed to fuck over their own GMail offering).
As for Chrome, that was originally developed by KDE devs first and Apple second into a modern browser engine. The innovation part was theirs. Google just adopted it wholesale in the beggining, and started monopolizing its steering...
> As for Chrome, that was originally developed by KDE devs first and Apple second into a modern browser engine. The innovation part was theirs. Google just adopted it wholesale in the beggining, and started monopolizing its steering...
That’s... not how that works. You’re talking about WebKit, but the innovation of Chrome was separate processes for everything so a crash anywhere wouldn’t take down the whole browser. Sure, they’ve gone a bit “mad with power,” but to claim Google did nothing in the beginning is ignoring reality.
That’s... not how that works. You’re talking about WebKit, but the innovation of Chrome was separate processes for everything so a crash anywhere wouldn’t take down the whole browser. Sure, they’ve gone a bit “mad with power,” but to claim Google did nothing in the beginning is ignoring reality.
> the innovation of Chrome was separate processes for everything
I'd argue that's more of an evolution than an innovation.
It had only just become normal for home and office PCs to feature multi-core processors. High capacity RAM was becoming relatively cheap compared to other PC components. We were still in the early days of webapps and social media. The concept of "browser tabs" was still new.
Google had the advantage of starting from ground zero, so they could consider these new trends as part of their design. Incumbents had to re-work their existing tech to take advantage of those trends.
I'd argue that's more of an evolution than an innovation.
It had only just become normal for home and office PCs to feature multi-core processors. High capacity RAM was becoming relatively cheap compared to other PC components. We were still in the early days of webapps and social media. The concept of "browser tabs" was still new.
Google had the advantage of starting from ground zero, so they could consider these new trends as part of their design. Incumbents had to re-work their existing tech to take advantage of those trends.
If these products genuinely can't survive as their own viable products, we all agree that something like each individual product is necessary, and the entire suite can be reliably used to crush any competition, I'd say you're looking at a good case for state ownership.
That's not to say I agree that all these predicates are met in Google's case, but if you really do find yourself in a situation where a company can't be broken up because the constituent products are necessary to society but can't function without one another, then that company probably can't be effectively regulated by any government.
That's not to say I agree that all these predicates are met in Google's case, but if you really do find yourself in a situation where a company can't be broken up because the constituent products are necessary to society but can't function without one another, then that company probably can't be effectively regulated by any government.
> To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate.
Suppose Chrome couldn't be a part of Google. They would have just contributed to Firefox, wouldn't you say?
Or if they were worried about Apple, donated startup capital to a non-profit Android Foundation to get it off the ground, where it could subsequently operate under a business model similar to Mozilla.
The difference is that the independent entities wouldn't have the same conflicts of interest as they do as part of the mothership. Firefox can care more about privacy than Chrome, so if it was the dominant browser, all the better. An Android Foundation operated by people in the spirit of Debian would probably care more about continuing to support older phone hardware, and care less about monopolizing app distribution to their operating system.
Suppose Chrome couldn't be a part of Google. They would have just contributed to Firefox, wouldn't you say?
Or if they were worried about Apple, donated startup capital to a non-profit Android Foundation to get it off the ground, where it could subsequently operate under a business model similar to Mozilla.
The difference is that the independent entities wouldn't have the same conflicts of interest as they do as part of the mothership. Firefox can care more about privacy than Chrome, so if it was the dominant browser, all the better. An Android Foundation operated by people in the spirit of Debian would probably care more about continuing to support older phone hardware, and care less about monopolizing app distribution to their operating system.
>To play Devil's advocate, how many of those would exist if they had been separate.
Hopefully much fewer.
>How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities.
None. It's actually increased. What you listed is products, not innovations.
Hopefully much fewer.
>How much innovation is restricted by splitting entities.
None. It's actually increased. What you listed is products, not innovations.
> Android was motivated to compete with Apple.
So was MeeGo, maybe we would be using that now if Google couldn't just throw its weight around.
> The Play Store and Chrome Web Store
Ah vendor locked in store fronts, nearly as innovative as the company store in mining towns. The promise by Google to completely pull the rug out under any Android manufacturer trying to get away from it only ads to its clear innovative superiority .
> Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible.
Yes, the last decade of venture capitalist funded loss companies like Uber has shown that no one could reach that size without Google to guide them.
So was MeeGo, maybe we would be using that now if Google couldn't just throw its weight around.
> The Play Store and Chrome Web Store
Ah vendor locked in store fronts, nearly as innovative as the company store in mining towns. The promise by Google to completely pull the rug out under any Android manufacturer trying to get away from it only ads to its clear innovative superiority .
> Many other Google products would likely struggle as startups, requiring massive scale to become profitable, if even possible.
Yes, the last decade of venture capitalist funded loss companies like Uber has shown that no one could reach that size without Google to guide them.
Something must absolutely be done to allow competing browser engines on iOS, such an anti-competitive behaviour is astonishing. How much money did Apple make thanks to not allowing the Web to be a viable alternative to native apps on its platform?
Over the past 10 years, how many companies chose to build native apps for iOS instead of web apps running everywhere? How many people bought iOS devices instead of competing products because of that rich app ecosystem (working only on iOS devices)? How much money did they make through the App Store fee that app developers could have saved if Web Apps had been a viable option? How much money was poured in the native industry instead of the Web?
Apple has been preventing the growth of the Web as an app platform for years, it's time for a change, and it's time they pay for it.
Over the past 10 years, how many companies chose to build native apps for iOS instead of web apps running everywhere? How many people bought iOS devices instead of competing products because of that rich app ecosystem (working only on iOS devices)? How much money did they make through the App Store fee that app developers could have saved if Web Apps had been a viable option? How much money was poured in the native industry instead of the Web?
Apple has been preventing the growth of the Web as an app platform for years, it's time for a change, and it's time they pay for it.
In what universe is Apple (a private company) responsible for the growth of the Web as an app platform? (which was not a design consideration when the web was invented). And who could make a sincere argument of being damaged by Apple not caring enough? Is it Apple's responsibility to make your life easier? In that case I've got a long list of companies to sue...
The problem is not that Apple doesn't care enough about the Web. If they don't want to add features to Webkit, that's fine.
The problem is that they prevent other browsers to add these features, because they prevent them from using their browser engines. That way, they prevent these browsers to really compete with theirs (Safari). Because if we could run the real Chrome on iOS, with all the APIs it supports, it's obvious everyone would ditch Safari straight away.
And more importantly, that way they prevent Web apps from competing with native apps. Because obviously, who would use a Web app which can't even send push notifications instead of a native app with all the native APIs it has access to?
So the problem is not Apple not caring enough about the Web. The problem is Apple having anti-competitive behaviour regarding Web browsers and application platforms on iOS.
The problem is that they prevent other browsers to add these features, because they prevent them from using their browser engines. That way, they prevent these browsers to really compete with theirs (Safari). Because if we could run the real Chrome on iOS, with all the APIs it supports, it's obvious everyone would ditch Safari straight away.
And more importantly, that way they prevent Web apps from competing with native apps. Because obviously, who would use a Web app which can't even send push notifications instead of a native app with all the native APIs it has access to?
So the problem is not Apple not caring enough about the Web. The problem is Apple having anti-competitive behaviour regarding Web browsers and application platforms on iOS.
> Because if we could run the real Chrome on iOS
You'd be running features that both Mozilla and Safari consider harmful and will not implement.
You'd be running features that both Mozilla and Safari consider harmful and will not implement.
Well, that would be my problem, as it is when I'm running (the real) Chrome on macOS, Android, Windows or Linux.
And if I'm not happy with that, maybe I'll switch to Firefox, which doesn't support them while not holding the Web back on many other features and with many unfixed bugs for years, like Apple does with Safari.
That's the advantage of competition, if you're not happy with a product, you can use another one instead.
And if I'm not happy with that, maybe I'll switch to Firefox, which doesn't support them while not holding the Web back on many other features and with many unfixed bugs for years, like Apple does with Safari.
That's the advantage of competition, if you're not happy with a product, you can use another one instead.
It's true that Apple outright bans apps that themselves could be vectors for platforms such as Flash back in its day. Today's "browsers" with their ever-increasing scope surely fit that criterion. I'm not defending Apple, but the idea that the web is an "open" platform (when it's overwhelmingly just Chrome) should not be used as an argument here, when Google employs just other anti-competitive tactics.
It's not just not caring about the web - they have a very strong financial incentive to kill the web as a viable platform for applications, games etc.
Apple has deliberately not fixed rendering inconsistencies in Safari when every other browser works more or less ina standardized manner.
Most frontend devs that I know making PWAs complain endlessly about the number of exceptions and workarounds for Safari, and indeed it does slow down development and ends up being a justification for contemplating dedicated mobile apps.
Most frontend devs that I know making PWAs complain endlessly about the number of exceptions and workarounds for Safari, and indeed it does slow down development and ends up being a justification for contemplating dedicated mobile apps.
I'm going to assume you are non-technical, because you are utterly missing the point of the GP.
Apple doesn't have to do anything, they just have to stop blocking others from doing anything.
Apple doesn't have to do anything, they just have to stop blocking others from doing anything.
[deleted]
Only if Apple can have two versions of iOS on offer: one that is locked down and possibly/putatively safe; the other that is wild-west, Android-like in quality of store offerings, with all the tracking issues that goes with that. I know which one I'd choose, and it isn't the latter; my suspicion is that the market would make the same decision.
That's a false dichotomy. Apple itself is famous for picking good defaults, I'm sure they can implement a decent compromise that simply moves the needle a bit more towards consumers. Free browsers and a simple option to allow 3rd party appstores, set to off by default and somewhat bothersome to switch (i.e. buried into iTunes account screens, behind password, possibly with a periodic reminder every few months) would be more than enough. People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to.
Anything else, like two iOS versions, is simply a provocation on the level of "we cannot unbundle IE".
Anything else, like two iOS versions, is simply a provocation on the level of "we cannot unbundle IE".
“People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to.“
This is where this line of reasoning goes wrong.
People will be persuaded to go out of the App Store ecosystem regardless of whether it is good for them or not.
Tens of billions of dollars and the most valuable advertising real estate on Facebook, Amazon, and the front page of Google, not to mention Epic and the other TenCent owned games companies will all be used to convince users to install alternative App Store.
Facebook and Amazon will presumably bundle stores directly into their apps. Why wouldn’t many other companies do this. Presumably TikTok would.
This is where this line of reasoning goes wrong.
People will be persuaded to go out of the App Store ecosystem regardless of whether it is good for them or not.
Tens of billions of dollars and the most valuable advertising real estate on Facebook, Amazon, and the front page of Google, not to mention Epic and the other TenCent owned games companies will all be used to convince users to install alternative App Store.
Facebook and Amazon will presumably bundle stores directly into their apps. Why wouldn’t many other companies do this. Presumably TikTok would.
This reasoning presumes that consumers will see no advantage at all in staying in the Apple Appstore. If true, this would simply prove that the Apple Appstore is effectively uncompetitive in the market, and can only profit in a situation of monopoly.
But it doesn’t matter, because all this is effectively false in practice. The overwhelming majority of people can barely be bothered to change their desktop browser, and even then they mostly do it only when directed (by their IT or their power-user of reference). This idea that they will all suddenly go tweak-crazy and install every appstore under the sun is simply an exaggeration, a strawman propped up to defend Apple’s utterly anticompetitive practices.
But it doesn’t matter, because all this is effectively false in practice. The overwhelming majority of people can barely be bothered to change their desktop browser, and even then they mostly do it only when directed (by their IT or their power-user of reference). This idea that they will all suddenly go tweak-crazy and install every appstore under the sun is simply an exaggeration, a strawman propped up to defend Apple’s utterly anticompetitive practices.
“This reasoning presumes that consumers will see no advantage at all”
You’re going to need to explain this. I don’t see anything in what I wrote that leads to the conclusions in your first paragraph.
1. Users may not understand the security/privacy benefits until after they have sacrificed them.
2. There will be very large competitors trying to persuade them that there are no benefits. E.g. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/16/22178068/facebook-apple-...
3. Alternate stores will pay for exclusives and users will be forced to use them or lose important apps.
4. Key apps such as Facebook itself will just build stores into their apps.
As to your second paragraph:
“The overwhelming majority of people can barely be bothered to change their desktop browser, and even then they mostly do it only when directed..”
This is true, which is precisely why only Facebook and Google plus Amazon and a few others, E.g. Epic, will have the resources to persuade users to establish large alternative stores. Google advertised Chrome on the front page, and on TV. This is exactly what would happen with alternative stores.
“This idea that they will all suddenly go tweak-crazy and install every appstore under the sun is simply an exaggeration..”
A strawman is when you present a deliberately weak version of another person’s argument, and then attack it. This paragraph of yours is a strawman. Nobody alluded to anyone going tweak crazy etc. Nobody defended Apple.
My comment was a response to this:
“People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to.“
Which is clearly an unrealistic depiction of how things would be.
You’re going to need to explain this. I don’t see anything in what I wrote that leads to the conclusions in your first paragraph.
1. Users may not understand the security/privacy benefits until after they have sacrificed them.
2. There will be very large competitors trying to persuade them that there are no benefits. E.g. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/16/22178068/facebook-apple-...
3. Alternate stores will pay for exclusives and users will be forced to use them or lose important apps.
4. Key apps such as Facebook itself will just build stores into their apps.
As to your second paragraph:
“The overwhelming majority of people can barely be bothered to change their desktop browser, and even then they mostly do it only when directed..”
This is true, which is precisely why only Facebook and Google plus Amazon and a few others, E.g. Epic, will have the resources to persuade users to establish large alternative stores. Google advertised Chrome on the front page, and on TV. This is exactly what would happen with alternative stores.
“This idea that they will all suddenly go tweak-crazy and install every appstore under the sun is simply an exaggeration..”
A strawman is when you present a deliberately weak version of another person’s argument, and then attack it. This paragraph of yours is a strawman. Nobody alluded to anyone going tweak crazy etc. Nobody defended Apple.
My comment was a response to this:
“People who want to stay safe in the Appstore garden have nothing to do, and everyone else can go the extra mile if they want to.“
Which is clearly an unrealistic depiction of how things would be.
> People will be persuaded to go out of the App Store ecosystem regardless of whether it is good for them or not.
This. We devs do a great/horrible enough job of this already being lazy with implementations and saying “Chrome is the only supported browser”
This. We devs do a great/horrible enough job of this already being lazy with implementations and saying “Chrome is the only supported browser”
I'd still put Facebook as the #1 issue, since WhatsApp and Instagram clearly should exist separately.
Google seems iffier, since Chrome at least would never be viable as a standalone product (as the fates of Mozilla and Opera have taught us).
Totally agree that Match group is an interesting under-the-radar one. It's shocking how much of the market they control with all their "competing" apps.
Google seems iffier, since Chrome at least would never be viable as a standalone product (as the fates of Mozilla and Opera have taught us).
Totally agree that Match group is an interesting under-the-radar one. It's shocking how much of the market they control with all their "competing" apps.
> Chrome at least would never be viable as a standalone product (as the fates of Mozilla and Opera have taught us).
Firefox has been viable as a standalone product for over a decade because Google pays for being the default search engine. This is roughly viable with Chrome being around, it would be even more viable if Chrome was not around.
Firefox has been viable as a standalone product for over a decade because Google pays for being the default search engine. This is roughly viable with Chrome being around, it would be even more viable if Chrome was not around.
And Google pays far more to Apple because they have more users. This would probably be dwarfed by what they'd pay to a hypothetical independent Chromium Inc. that develops the browser.
Hard to say -- In Apple's case, there are so many potential users it's worth Google's money to get their search engine as the default.
However, Mozilla doesn't have a massive userbase like that, which leads me to suspect that Google only pays Mozilla to stave off pressure form regulators who would otherwise accuse them of having a monopoly on browsers.
However, Mozilla doesn't have a massive userbase like that, which leads me to suspect that Google only pays Mozilla to stave off pressure form regulators who would otherwise accuse them of having a monopoly on browsers.
If chrome didn't exist, I'd say that it's more likely than not that Firefox would have the majority of windows uses...
Mozilla and Opera aren't viable because of Chrome. Chrome is arguably more polished because Google pours more money into its development, more readily available because Google can lobby/buy/enforce its inclusion as the default browser, and free because Google makes money from the information it collects through it.
You can't compete with Chrome when your primary merit is simply not being Google. Forcing Google to spin-off Chrome should have been done earlier though, before Microsoft had a stake on the engine. Now additional steps need to be taken to ensure that spinning off Chrome will not actually kill competition; with an independent Chrome, we can count on Google cutting down on Mozilla's funding since Google wouldn't be any longer in danger of being ruled as a browser monopoly.
You can't compete with Chrome when your primary merit is simply not being Google. Forcing Google to spin-off Chrome should have been done earlier though, before Microsoft had a stake on the engine. Now additional steps need to be taken to ensure that spinning off Chrome will not actually kill competition; with an independent Chrome, we can count on Google cutting down on Mozilla's funding since Google wouldn't be any longer in danger of being ruled as a browser monopoly.
>Totally agree that Match group is an interesting under-the-radar one. It's shocking how much of the market they control with all their "competing" apps.
I wonder if this means that we should all start starting dating app companies, given that apparently it's a guaranteed sale if you can attract enough users. We could start the "match group group," stamping out standardized dating apps and putting proven amounts of brand-building effort into each one, and selling them to Match Group at a repeatable price.
I wonder if this means that we should all start starting dating app companies, given that apparently it's a guaranteed sale if you can attract enough users. We could start the "match group group," stamping out standardized dating apps and putting proven amounts of brand-building effort into each one, and selling them to Match Group at a repeatable price.
You can't draw any conclusions about Chrome based on Moz and Opera, because it was the reason the other two could not survive.
Interesting thought -- but IIRC, before Chrome, Firefox was already facing an uphill battle, since most people just tended to use the browser bundled with their OS. I mostly remember only tech savvy people tending to download Firefox back in those days.
Yeah, I used internet explorer until chrome. People said firefox was so much better than internet explorer, but they always felt comparable to me and I'm not a person who just switches because others tells me to. Chrome however really felt different, I switched to it when it was just a beta and had less site compatibility simply because I liked it so much more.
Depends on your location. In 2010 Firefox had 60% market share in Germany.
Firefox usage was slowly but steadily increasing pre-chrome though.
Love this idea.
“ Google should be prevented from having their own WWW crawler too. The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google and any other company that want to purchase it at the same costs.”
I know someone working on DOJ’s case vs G search, yet I haven’t heard any decent proposals to solve the problem. This is one. Simple and could spark a lot of innovation. (Probably has drawbacks that I haven’t considered yet.)
“ Google should be prevented from having their own WWW crawler too. The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google and any other company that want to purchase it at the same costs.”
I know someone working on DOJ’s case vs G search, yet I haven’t heard any decent proposals to solve the problem. This is one. Simple and could spark a lot of innovation. (Probably has drawbacks that I haven’t considered yet.)
I'm not sure splitting off the crawler would have the effect you want it to. Crawling is hard, but actually one of the easier parts of building a search engine. There are less complete, but still pretty impressive public crawls available already, like Common Crawl.
The harder problem is what you do with the result of the crawl once you have it. You need to index it. This is one of Google's deepest moats. Being able to serve any of hundreds of billions of documents in milliseconds requires an enormous amount of infrastructure and hundreds of careers worth of difficult software engineering.
I don't see a good way to split indexing out as a separate company from the rest of the search engine. It's tightly integrated with ranking. Generally a new ranking technique requires some new information to be associated with each document in the index, e.g. some precomputed scores that describe the document's quality or fitness for different kinds of queries. At query time, you're often just weighting and comparing these scores across documents.
If you had Google's index, you'd be a long way towards being able to replicate Google's results, but I don't think that would lead to the kind of innovation you're hoping for.
The harder problem is what you do with the result of the crawl once you have it. You need to index it. This is one of Google's deepest moats. Being able to serve any of hundreds of billions of documents in milliseconds requires an enormous amount of infrastructure and hundreds of careers worth of difficult software engineering.
I don't see a good way to split indexing out as a separate company from the rest of the search engine. It's tightly integrated with ranking. Generally a new ranking technique requires some new information to be associated with each document in the index, e.g. some precomputed scores that describe the document's quality or fitness for different kinds of queries. At query time, you're often just weighting and comparing these scores across documents.
If you had Google's index, you'd be a long way towards being able to replicate Google's results, but I don't think that would lead to the kind of innovation you're hoping for.
> Common Crawl
Not even close. I've used Common Crawl, it has nowhere near the breadth that Google has in their index.
Problem no. 1 is that website owners block non Google crawlers because of limited bandwidth. So you can't reliably even get started on creating your own search engine. Once we have the data available, we can figure out the other bits and what they require. But to get to that door, you need access to the crawl.
You don't need to have everything in the Google index to beat Google.
You need to be better than Google in the search niche that you'll serve.
And for that, at the bare minimum, you need access to all the crawl data that Google has to get started, then throw away the bits that you don't need.
Not even close. I've used Common Crawl, it has nowhere near the breadth that Google has in their index.
Problem no. 1 is that website owners block non Google crawlers because of limited bandwidth. So you can't reliably even get started on creating your own search engine. Once we have the data available, we can figure out the other bits and what they require. But to get to that door, you need access to the crawl.
You don't need to have everything in the Google index to beat Google.
You need to be better than Google in the search niche that you'll serve.
And for that, at the bare minimum, you need access to all the crawl data that Google has to get started, then throw away the bits that you don't need.
So if we make internet bandwidth a regulated utility like electricity and water, would that create an environment where other crawlers could compete?
[deleted]
Bandwidth costs have been continually declining for decades since competition started. The utility model of Ma Bell kept bandwidth costs up.
Google's crawler gets preferential treatment on many sites. Not necessarily because of private deals, but because it drives traffic from search results.
Quote via [2]
--- start quote ---
When Mr. Maril started researching how sites treated Google’s crawler, he downloaded 17 million so-called robots.txt files — essentially rules of the road posted by nearly every website laying out where crawlers can go — and found many examples where Google had greater access than competitors.
ScienceDirect, a site for peer-reviewed papers, permits only Google’s crawler to have access to links containing PDF documents. Only Google’s computers get access to listings on PBS Kids. On Alibaba.com, the U.S. site of the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, only Google’s crawler is given access to pages that list products.
--- end quote ---
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/technology/how-google-dom...
[2] https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/12/14/wakabayashi-goo...
Quote via [2]
--- start quote ---
When Mr. Maril started researching how sites treated Google’s crawler, he downloaded 17 million so-called robots.txt files — essentially rules of the road posted by nearly every website laying out where crawlers can go — and found many examples where Google had greater access than competitors.
ScienceDirect, a site for peer-reviewed papers, permits only Google’s crawler to have access to links containing PDF documents. Only Google’s computers get access to listings on PBS Kids. On Alibaba.com, the U.S. site of the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, only Google’s crawler is given access to pages that list products.
--- end quote ---
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/technology/how-google-dom...
[2] https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/12/14/wakabayashi-goo...
So it sounds like the regulators should focus on forcing every web property to give equal access to all crawlers. Why steal Google's investment and hard work and innovation?
>I'm not sure splitting off the crawler would have the effect you want it to. Crawling is hard, but actually one of the easier parts of building a search engine. There are less complete, but still pretty impressive public crawls available already, like Common Crawl.
When they saw crawler they don't mean Googlebot or something.
They mean the whole thing you've described, the search engine as a backend.
What the law proposes is that other companies should be able to just buy the search engine service from a new company split from Google, of which Google which will just be just another client.
>I don't see a good way to split indexing out as a separate company from the rest of the search engine. It's tightly integrated with ranking.
The idea is to split the whole search part from Google. Let them have the ad business, Android and so on, and just rent the search from the spin-off company...
When they saw crawler they don't mean Googlebot or something.
They mean the whole thing you've described, the search engine as a backend.
What the law proposes is that other companies should be able to just buy the search engine service from a new company split from Google, of which Google which will just be just another client.
>I don't see a good way to split indexing out as a separate company from the rest of the search engine. It's tightly integrated with ranking.
The idea is to split the whole search part from Google. Let them have the ad business, Android and so on, and just rent the search from the spin-off company...
There is so much irony in the fact that the web loves Google crawler, optimizes for it, makes sure that Google robots have special, first class treatment.
And at the same time, on the same website I need to enter Google-provided captcha. To fight robots.
And at the same time, on the same website I need to enter Google-provided captcha. To fight robots.
Well, I wasn't taking the OP's idea to mean only splitting off the crawler. Why not an API where you send it the search query and then it returns the results? It could have a variety of return options including using a ranking of the API publisher's choosing or you could ask for something raw, and innovate with an even better or more suitable ranking based on your specific needs.
In the end, the point would be to make Google closer to what it was at the beginning -- just input and output. No ads on top of it, no bundling with other offerings etc. And if the publisher's ranking remains as good as it should, then surely some will be willing to pay not only for the raw data, but the ranking as well.
In the end, the point would be to make Google closer to what it was at the beginning -- just input and output. No ads on top of it, no bundling with other offerings etc. And if the publisher's ranking remains as good as it should, then surely some will be willing to pay not only for the raw data, but the ranking as well.
This is exactly how I envisioned it. A crawl+index company that gives equal access to all competitors.
The search front companies would use the index to retrieve pages, then they would rank these pages with their own criteria and filter with their own white/black lists, then present the result in their own UI. Each one would have their own ads and tracking (or lack thereof). The index would not be able to know the identities of the users.
In the end they all boil down to an "attention economy", it's about us and our eyeballs, we should have more say on what we are consuming.
The part about ranking, filtering, tracking and UI is true for FaceBook and Twitter as well, even though they are a different kind of service. We could have alternative views on these systems, where we have more control on the way the system manipulates the information for us.
The search front companies would use the index to retrieve pages, then they would rank these pages with their own criteria and filter with their own white/black lists, then present the result in their own UI. Each one would have their own ads and tracking (or lack thereof). The index would not be able to know the identities of the users.
In the end they all boil down to an "attention economy", it's about us and our eyeballs, we should have more say on what we are consuming.
The part about ranking, filtering, tracking and UI is true for FaceBook and Twitter as well, even though they are a different kind of service. We could have alternative views on these systems, where we have more control on the way the system manipulates the information for us.
To expand on this idea: Place the crawler under a non-profit such as the Internet Archive, so the results can serve the public & the commercial agreements can fund their broader archival efforts too.
Sounds like a similar idea to the way the UK broke BTs hold on the internet market. They were forced to split the infrastructure into BT OpenReach and then BT joins all the other ISPs in paying for the lines from OpenReach.
One possible issue is that the users of the data may place different prominence on a particular URL, and may decide that it warrants more frequent crawling.
For site owners, it may prove to be lower maintenance to simply whitelist such a bot for crawling, though on the downside they may want to pick and choose which search engines can index it, and since the crawl (assumedly) would use one UA it would complicate how site owners can tell respective search engines what they're allowed to do with the crawl data.
For site owners, it may prove to be lower maintenance to simply whitelist such a bot for crawling, though on the downside they may want to pick and choose which search engines can index it, and since the crawl (assumedly) would use one UA it would complicate how site owners can tell respective search engines what they're allowed to do with the crawl data.
A real API would be nice! One can imagine what innovation it could spark in AI / feeding / learning neural nets with a nice API.
I would like an investigation in to data sharing in the travel industry. Airlines and cartels thereof, credit card companies, airports, hotels, oldschool booking networks (Amadeus, Galileo, etc.), newschool booking websites and governments.
While we're at it, how about making shady practices about "last seat available" and "secure your seat" and "sit with your family!" and so forth illegal. "Upgrade to clue!"
While we're at it, how about making shady practices about "last seat available" and "secure your seat" and "sit with your family!" and so forth illegal. "Upgrade to clue!"
> The app store needs to be eliminated.
Oh fuck NO. Apple has saved me from scummy apps more times than I can remember. They always refund without question, including when I fell for Match.com's "Pay up to see how many bots like you" scam.
Right now I'm fighting to get my money back from Couchsurfing.com (they started throwing a "COVID contribution" prompt on the app and the website that blocks you from doing anything, can't even delete your account until you pay) and they're flat out ignoring me. They use a custom payments system. If it was a regular In-App Purchase, Apple would have refunded me within hours by now.
Anyone clamoring for the protections of the App Store to be abolished is very likely someone salivating to prey upon users.
Oh fuck NO. Apple has saved me from scummy apps more times than I can remember. They always refund without question, including when I fell for Match.com's "Pay up to see how many bots like you" scam.
Right now I'm fighting to get my money back from Couchsurfing.com (they started throwing a "COVID contribution" prompt on the app and the website that blocks you from doing anything, can't even delete your account until you pay) and they're flat out ignoring me. They use a custom payments system. If it was a regular In-App Purchase, Apple would have refunded me within hours by now.
Anyone clamoring for the protections of the App Store to be abolished is very likely someone salivating to prey upon users.
How about Microsoft?
They own Windows + Internet Explorer/Edge + Bing and a lot of internet services.
I think it's problematic that Skype gets auto-installed eery time Windows updates.
They own Windows + Internet Explorer/Edge + Bing and a lot of internet services.
I think it's problematic that Skype gets auto-installed eery time Windows updates.
I don't think it's a problem. Developers that develop for Windows collectively make far more money than Microsoft does. Windows is a platform and Microsoft does a good job of being a platform.
While Microsoft bundles, it's not problematic like Google or Apple. Their way of doing things is different.
The problem with the smart phone world is that apps are distributed through stores not websites. There isn't any worthy exclusive Windows Store app I can find. Every useful software is available from the websites.
In the smart phone world, as a device manufacturer you have to get Google's blessings. They control the play store. And as a device manufacturer, no play store = no sales.
The app store parasite model needs to end. I get no viruses in years, and I download software from websites all the time on Windows 10.
While Microsoft bundles, it's not problematic like Google or Apple. Their way of doing things is different.
The problem with the smart phone world is that apps are distributed through stores not websites. There isn't any worthy exclusive Windows Store app I can find. Every useful software is available from the websites.
In the smart phone world, as a device manufacturer you have to get Google's blessings. They control the play store. And as a device manufacturer, no play store = no sales.
The app store parasite model needs to end. I get no viruses in years, and I download software from websites all the time on Windows 10.
if microsoft is abusing their OS market share to push edge and bing, they are doing an awfully bad job of it.
Based on the frequency with which Windows 10 decides to reset my default browser to Edge "because reasons" I disagree.
Google accepted the anti-consumer challenge: on Android, links from Google Assistant and Google News feed ignore phone's default browser setting, and open in Chrome instead.
Not only has Chrome near monopoly, cemented by being the default preinstalled browser - they feel the urge to nip even the tiny insignificant competition in the bud.
Not only has Chrome near monopoly, cemented by being the default preinstalled browser - they feel the urge to nip even the tiny insignificant competition in the bud.
that does sound very annoying (although as a Win10 user myself, I can't say I've ever experienced this), but it's not exactly an antitrust issue when edge and IE combined have captured only ~10% of the browser market.
The expectation that the EU can have this much influence over American firms, to the point that they can break them up and change their business models is a pretty shocking development.
We're beginning to see the limitations of globalization. For all the anti-trust rhetoric from the US, it's unlikely it'll accept this level of over-reach without pushing back. Imagine a US company getting approval for a merger from the US and not getting approval from the EU, what happens then? Can China also grant itself this level of influence over American business?
We're definitely in the beginning stages of a new world order that's far less cohesive, with distributed levels of influence.
We're beginning to see the limitations of globalization. For all the anti-trust rhetoric from the US, it's unlikely it'll accept this level of over-reach without pushing back. Imagine a US company getting approval for a merger from the US and not getting approval from the EU, what happens then? Can China also grant itself this level of influence over American business?
We're definitely in the beginning stages of a new world order that's far less cohesive, with distributed levels of influence.
Are they really "American" firms in anything but name? Once they go multinational, they lose their allegiance to their "native" countries. I don't see any evidence of loyalty to their home countries, per se. Not even in the most basic sense of paying their fair due of taxes.
I don't think it's shocking at all. Every market is free to regulate itself however it sees fit, regardless of what "nationality" players on it have. It's interesting hardly anyone blinks an eye when that regulation allows "American" companies to save costs in developing countries but there are complaints when it disadvantages those companies, often for the same kinds of regulation: labour and environmental.
I don't think it's shocking at all. Every market is free to regulate itself however it sees fit, regardless of what "nationality" players on it have. It's interesting hardly anyone blinks an eye when that regulation allows "American" companies to save costs in developing countries but there are complaints when it disadvantages those companies, often for the same kinds of regulation: labour and environmental.
> Imagine a US company getting approval for a merger from the US and not getting approval from the EU, what happens then? Can China also grant itself this level of influence over American business?
Both of these are already the status quo even before this law
Both of these are already the status quo even before this law
It’s already happened. GE-Honeywell was rejected. The answer depends on how important the EU or China market is to that business.
I love how these tech companies are under scrutiny, yet the telecoms with US duopolies are being conveniently ignored. imo this is a lesson for those companies to massively increase their investment in lobbying.
This story is about the EU. What is the point of making it about US-specific problems?
I was responding to a specific comment. I wasn't making a general one regarding the article. Is my comment not a relevant response?
Let's not forget that this is a US based website. It's only natural that US based issues and US based viewpoints will always surface.
Let's not forget that this is a US based website. It's only natural that US based issues and US based viewpoints will always surface.
They don’t own:
- Bumble
- Badoo
- Eharmony
- Zoosk
- ChrstianMingle
- JDate
- tons of international and niche sites and apps
- many, many others
The idea that there is monopoly power being leveraged here to prevent other dating sites from being started and grown and be successful has very little evidence behind it.
- Bumble
- Badoo
- Eharmony
- Zoosk
- ChrstianMingle
- JDate
- tons of international and niche sites and apps
- many, many others
The idea that there is monopoly power being leveraged here to prevent other dating sites from being started and grown and be successful has very little evidence behind it.
Apple owns far less of the phone and mobile app market than Match Group owns of the dating market. Should Apple be on the list?
If you agree that Apple should be on the list, then Match Group should without question be on the list.
If you agree that Apple should be on the list, then Match Group should without question be on the list.
The reasons why monopolies are bad isn't automatically due to the size of the market that a company controls.
Instead, the reason why they are bad, is due to things like barriers to entry, and the anti competitive practices that they enact.
For dating apps, I don't see how match group is putting up anything that could be described as a barrier to entry, for other dating apps.
Whereas Apple is absolutely doing things that effect competition in the market, by, for example, preventing competing app stores on the Iphone.
Therefore, Apple's actions are much worse than Match Groups, even though they have a smaller percentage of the market.
Instead, the reason why they are bad, is due to things like barriers to entry, and the anti competitive practices that they enact.
For dating apps, I don't see how match group is putting up anything that could be described as a barrier to entry, for other dating apps.
Whereas Apple is absolutely doing things that effect competition in the market, by, for example, preventing competing app stores on the Iphone.
Therefore, Apple's actions are much worse than Match Groups, even though they have a smaller percentage of the market.
> For Apple, it's their app store. The app store needs to be eliminated. Apple has a problem with not allowing competing browser engines on iOS and misleading people by saying it's for privacy reason. Eliminating the control of the App store from Apple is going to fix the problem.
In your opinion, what is the real reason for no allowing alternative browsers?
In your opinion, what is the real reason for no allowing alternative browsers?
> The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google
I like this idea, but more precisely I'd put the index with the crawler as well and only keep the ranking/filtering and display part separate. I'd like to see many "heads" on top of the crawler/indexer.
I like this idea, but more precisely I'd put the index with the crawler as well and only keep the ranking/filtering and display part separate. I'd like to see many "heads" on top of the crawler/indexer.
Travel apps never managed a "The winner takes it all" approach.
Regarding "match". You would be surprised how much fraud exits in the dating industry. How many people get payed to keep paying customers engaged with the app. Also, just wait until your Tinder gold expries. You will get tons of (hidden) likes.
Regarding "match". You would be surprised how much fraud exits in the dating industry. How many people get payed to keep paying customers engaged with the app. Also, just wait until your Tinder gold expries. You will get tons of (hidden) likes.
Add whoever owns all those hotel booking sites. Pretty much the same kind of monopoly as Match Group, but with 10x the dark patterns.
It’s split between Expedia and Priceline.
Funniest thing, Alibaba was just recently denied its merger attempt in the grocery delivery market.
Alibaba and Tencent would be great candidates. There is no chance China will do anything though, as these companies are their best chance to compete on a global stage. The EU could make a case against them that actually has legs, rather than the U.S. flip flopping on TikToking
Do Alibaba and Tencent have a significant number of users in the EU?
Your list not seeing the forest for the trees:
Microsoft
Microsoft
ebay and paypal
I'd wait and watch. Cryptocurrencies are rising, and PornHub is going all in on crypto now that they've been cut off from VISA and MasterCard.
They might be the ones who finally push it for mainstream adoption, then PayPal can go kick rocks.
If it fails, then maaaybe we could think about it. Still not as bad as these 4 major offenders.
They might be the ones who finally push it for mainstream adoption, then PayPal can go kick rocks.
If it fails, then maaaybe we could think about it. Still not as bad as these 4 major offenders.
Paypal existed because they allow disputes. Until a cryptocurrency or some broker on it can handle fraud other than "haha you're screwed" its a non starter.
Regarding Apple, just break it into a hardware + software company. All issues will automatically resolve. And it will be better for the environment as a bonus, because devices can be used for a longer time and with multiple purposes.
As an Apple device user that's precisely the last thing I want. The whole reason I buy their product is because how tightly the hardware and software is integrated and for all the benefits that this gets me, as opposed to Android.
Can you give an example? What features does it bring specifically?
The M1 chip, which seems designed to run reference counted software written in Swift or Objective-C. But there are plenty of other examples (ever wonder why no one seems to be able to replicate Apple's great trackpads?).
> The M1 chip, which seems designed to run reference counted software written in Swift or Objective-C.
You'll have to explain why a dedicated hardware company wouldn't be able to come up with such a chip given sufficient competition. If many people use language X, then it makes sense for an IC design company to optimize for that language (unless there is a near-monopoly situation and they don't care about what the market wants).
> But there are plenty of other examples (ever wonder why no one seems to be able to replicate Apple's great trackpads?).
I'm afraid you'll have to provide some more context, because the connection between your argument and both hardware and software seems missing.
You'll have to explain why a dedicated hardware company wouldn't be able to come up with such a chip given sufficient competition. If many people use language X, then it makes sense for an IC design company to optimize for that language (unless there is a near-monopoly situation and they don't care about what the market wants).
> But there are plenty of other examples (ever wonder why no one seems to be able to replicate Apple's great trackpads?).
I'm afraid you'll have to provide some more context, because the connection between your argument and both hardware and software seems missing.
> You'll have to explain why a dedicated hardware company wouldn't be able to come up with such a chip given sufficient competition. If many people use language X, then it makes sense for an IC design company to optimise for that language (unless there is a near-monopoly situation and they don't care about what the market wants).
They gave you an example. Apple (software part) don't need to run around and ask hardware companies to implement optimisations in their hardware, and hope that implementation will be as promised (see: Microsoft and Qualcomm, and debacle called "custom ARM chip for Windows"). Apple (software part) can plan their releases many years in advance, knowing that Apple (hardware part) will fulfil their promise (see: Intel's roadmap recently, NVidia and Apple in the past). Apple (software part) can choose programming language that suits them and be sure that the hardware will follow. Apple (hardware part) can plan many years in advance and make obviously superior product knowing that there will be enough software support (Rosetta 2) to overcome initial platform switching pain. The whole M1 Mac story is all about the company that is so integrated that they can pull something that nobody else can.
You choose to ignore the example.
They gave you an example. Apple (software part) don't need to run around and ask hardware companies to implement optimisations in their hardware, and hope that implementation will be as promised (see: Microsoft and Qualcomm, and debacle called "custom ARM chip for Windows"). Apple (software part) can plan their releases many years in advance, knowing that Apple (hardware part) will fulfil their promise (see: Intel's roadmap recently, NVidia and Apple in the past). Apple (software part) can choose programming language that suits them and be sure that the hardware will follow. Apple (hardware part) can plan many years in advance and make obviously superior product knowing that there will be enough software support (Rosetta 2) to overcome initial platform switching pain. The whole M1 Mac story is all about the company that is so integrated that they can pull something that nobody else can.
You choose to ignore the example.
[deleted]
I've come to realize this: free markets of winner-take-all products are a losing game for Europe. We're too late to the game, we can't compete with these huge companies, and there's no way to catch up in terms of venture capital. There are structural difficulties, namely that there are 50 very different countries on this continent with completely different languages and cultures. There is no way we can support massive tech companies such as Google, even if they would arise here as startups.
As such, the only reasonable thing to do is to slowly ween ourselves off American tech in favor of letting our our own grow, just like China did. They probably won't be as good, but unless we want to be completely dependent on a foreign power for all our IT, we have no choice. And really, we have no obligation to let American companies pick the fruits of our markets out of some weird sense of "fairness" of free markets. The world is not fair. Of course, there will be retaliations, but for any non-IT tech there are local or Chinese substitutes.
As such, the only reasonable thing to do is to slowly ween ourselves off American tech in favor of letting our our own grow, just like China did. They probably won't be as good, but unless we want to be completely dependent on a foreign power for all our IT, we have no choice. And really, we have no obligation to let American companies pick the fruits of our markets out of some weird sense of "fairness" of free markets. The world is not fair. Of course, there will be retaliations, but for any non-IT tech there are local or Chinese substitutes.
>we can't compete
the issue is even deeper. You can't compete without recreating the same issues that those giants already have in the US or China. I don't even want to compete with Facebook just to have European Facebook, it'd suck just as much.
I want smaller companies, which don't abuse data, which don't sacrifice security for 'hypergrowth', who are able to moderate their content and comply with laws rather than ignore them, and so on. Companies like this will never compete with American or Chinese giants in a 'free market'. It's like having a green energy company compete with companies that can legally pour their waste into the river.
The EU needs to create rules to reward small companies and to curb large ones. Don't copy "maximal consumer welfare" doctrines or prioritise convenience, promote decentralisation. It looks like there's some good stuff in these new laws, but they don't go far enough yet.
the issue is even deeper. You can't compete without recreating the same issues that those giants already have in the US or China. I don't even want to compete with Facebook just to have European Facebook, it'd suck just as much.
I want smaller companies, which don't abuse data, which don't sacrifice security for 'hypergrowth', who are able to moderate their content and comply with laws rather than ignore them, and so on. Companies like this will never compete with American or Chinese giants in a 'free market'. It's like having a green energy company compete with companies that can legally pour their waste into the river.
The EU needs to create rules to reward small companies and to curb large ones. Don't copy "maximal consumer welfare" doctrines or prioritise convenience, promote decentralisation. It looks like there's some good stuff in these new laws, but they don't go far enough yet.
> I want smaller companies, which don't abuse data, which don't sacrifice security for 'hypergrowth', who are able to moderate their content and comply with laws rather than ignore them, and so on
Why would smaller companies be better positioned for those things?
Why would smaller companies be better positioned for those things?
because a larger number of smaller companies increases competition, meaning users can realistically leave, making firms accountable to their community (ask yourself why discourse on HN or a mastodon instance is more civil than on Facebook, for example). More human-scale size enables human content moderation.
any given smaller company is non-essential, meaning it cannot challenge lawmakers on the grounds of being essential, or bully lawmakers into submission.
Smallness also incentivises business models that aren't data-analytics driven because small companies simply lack huge pools of user-data, hopefully diminishing the toxic surveillance-capital model of predominantly large firms.
any given smaller company is non-essential, meaning it cannot challenge lawmakers on the grounds of being essential, or bully lawmakers into submission.
Smallness also incentivises business models that aren't data-analytics driven because small companies simply lack huge pools of user-data, hopefully diminishing the toxic surveillance-capital model of predominantly large firms.
This doesn’t work when there are network effects. We had enough smaller social networks in Europe but they were all eventually subsumed by a US companies like fb, Twitter ir LinkedIn.
Also, the US has 50% of the worldwide online advertisement market in a single cultural region.
Also, the US has 50% of the worldwide online advertisement market in a single cultural region.
> I don't even want to compete with Facebook just to have European Facebook, it'd suck just as much.
I want smaller companies, which don't abuse data, which don't sacrifice security for 'hypergrowth'
The EU needs to create rules to reward small companies and to curb large ones.
There's two things the EU could do here: force big companies to split up (so they can't favour their own services) and require social networks to be interoperable (using ActivityPub or similar).
There's two things the EU could do here: force big companies to split up (so they can't favour their own services) and require social networks to be interoperable (using ActivityPub or similar).
Perhaps it's a losing game for Europe because Europe isn't really a free market. European powers have constantly been imposing all sorts of taxes, restrictions, and sanctions on tech companies that make it an inhospitable place for tech companies to start out. Its telling that many of the European countries that have managed to produce successful startups are those which had to rebuild from scratch after WWII or after the USSR fell. Elsewhere government is too big for its own good and just seems to stifle innovation. America was successful in the 20th century largely because it was so far removed from large and stagnant European governments. Likewise, west coast tech companies are arguably successful today in part because of their distance from an increasingly bloated Washington. Regulations kill innovation.
I'd like to point out that post-WW2 the US had about half of the world's wealth and a ton of labour to produce for the greater world. Regulations or not, they would have dominated either way. The US's success, I'd argue, is more about their position in the world at that point in time rather than some ideological "regulations vs innovation" battle.
Not to mention the other half of the wealth was battered, war torn, and bombed to shit.
The US got to take their wealth and invest it in innovation and growth. Europe had to beg, borrow and steal just to rebuild what it had a couple of decades earlier.
The US got to take their wealth and invest it in innovation and growth. Europe had to beg, borrow and steal just to rebuild what it had a couple of decades earlier.
A helluva lot of post-WWII "investment in innovation and growth" was spent in Europe. You're welcome.
You’re not wrong. Something that the US has reaped the benefits of ever since, in the form of a huge market to trade with, and join it in its various wars.
It certainly wasn’t charity, and most of it was via loans that were repaid. So yes, thank you, but equally don’t get too big for your boots, it was driven by only shrewd self-interest.
It certainly wasn’t charity, and most of it was via loans that were repaid. So yes, thank you, but equally don’t get too big for your boots, it was driven by only shrewd self-interest.
Yet, post-WW2, it was Germany that saw an economic miracle of strong growth despite being practically dismantled after the war.
So why Germany and not say France or the UK? Countries that saw much less destruction than Germany?
So why Germany and not say France or the UK? Countries that saw much less destruction than Germany?
[deleted]
I think a big factor you're missing here is that many of the regulations in Europe are around the public's (and workers) rights, health and wellbeing.
For example it's difficult to create a startup in France because it's very difficult to discipline or fire anyone, and tech workers are used to clocking off at 5pm and having 35+ holiday days per year.
This means that no one's creating these epic billion dollar companies in a hurry, but at the same time the populous is defended, healthy, and not overworked. As opposed to the US where often a company's rise comes at the cost of a wealth of underpaid and mistreated workers (Amazon, Uber, we could go on).
To use an intentionally extreme analogy, your argument feels like sitting around watching the US build lovely tall pyramids with slave labour, saying that Europe's regulations get in the way of it building such tall pyramids. Well, yes, of course, the US is better, if all you're measuring is the height of the pyramids. (nevermind that the US is the easily the biggest user of slave (penal) labour outside of China)
It seems like US workers and the US public lose out on almost every other measurement.
For example it's difficult to create a startup in France because it's very difficult to discipline or fire anyone, and tech workers are used to clocking off at 5pm and having 35+ holiday days per year.
This means that no one's creating these epic billion dollar companies in a hurry, but at the same time the populous is defended, healthy, and not overworked. As opposed to the US where often a company's rise comes at the cost of a wealth of underpaid and mistreated workers (Amazon, Uber, we could go on).
To use an intentionally extreme analogy, your argument feels like sitting around watching the US build lovely tall pyramids with slave labour, saying that Europe's regulations get in the way of it building such tall pyramids. Well, yes, of course, the US is better, if all you're measuring is the height of the pyramids. (nevermind that the US is the easily the biggest user of slave (penal) labour outside of China)
It seems like US workers and the US public lose out on almost every other measurement.
These are definitely important factors, and Europe would be in much better shape if it did things right. But I think the geographical features are more important. An American company can grow big locally and then wash over the European market when it's reached maturity. In the meantime, European startups start off in their tiny local market, perhaps 10M, unable to compete in the US, but not big enough to easily expand to the rest of Europe. If for some reason you still succeed, now you have to recruit tens of thousands of people to move to your tiny little country, with a different culture and language. It's not easy to recruit people to move to Stockholm to work for Spotify, not only because of the weather, but also because who wants to spend the energy to learn Swedish for a single job? The alternative is to never really integrate into society.
I've been working for startups in Copenhagen ("the most livable city in the world") for a few years now, and every young tech company I know of have extremely diverse developer teams (it's not uncommon to be in the minority as a local). People absolutely do want to move here, including Americans. As for the language, the working language is English, and for better or worse people do live here for years without learning the language.
> to your tiny little country
Well China would like to have a word with about your "tiny little" country. A world exists outside of the borders of the USA.
There"s always someone bigger than you so "tiny little" is usually not a good platform for an argument.
> If for some reason you still succeed, now you have to recruit tens of thousands of people to move to your tiny little country
Further, the idea that all employees of one company must work in one country is clearly not the case. Or did globalisation not happen?
> but also because who wants to spend the energy to learn Swedish for a single job
Whilst not in huge numbers, generalisations such as this also do not help your argument.
Well China would like to have a word with about your "tiny little" country. A world exists outside of the borders of the USA.
There"s always someone bigger than you so "tiny little" is usually not a good platform for an argument.
> If for some reason you still succeed, now you have to recruit tens of thousands of people to move to your tiny little country
Further, the idea that all employees of one company must work in one country is clearly not the case. Or did globalisation not happen?
> but also because who wants to spend the energy to learn Swedish for a single job
Whilst not in huge numbers, generalisations such as this also do not help your argument.
That seems awfully defeatist. Spotify is winning in music, for example. And that's certainly a case where the different languages make a big difference.
European culture is more homogeneous than I think a lot of people in Europe appreciate. And that's the root of the tech issues, in that the culture doesn't foster risk taking.
European culture is more homogeneous than I think a lot of people in Europe appreciate. And that's the root of the tech issues, in that the culture doesn't foster risk taking.
> Spotify is winning in music, for example.
Jury's still out on that one, Apple Music is making very large in roads, and Spotify is starting to struggle.
It quite possible for the statement "the US have greater cultural homogeneity than the EU" to true alongside the statement:
> European culture is more homogeneous than I think a lot of people in Europe appreciate.
And I would argue that's exactly the case. Having been in startup that seriously looked at expanding in the US vs expanding in the rest of the EU (it expanded into the US), I'm confident to say the US is far more homogenous. Interestingly that doesn't necessarily mean that it's easier for an EU company to expand the US rather than the EU. But it does mean that EU startups have a much larger bump in the road than US companies when they're expanding.
Jury's still out on that one, Apple Music is making very large in roads, and Spotify is starting to struggle.
It quite possible for the statement "the US have greater cultural homogeneity than the EU" to true alongside the statement:
> European culture is more homogeneous than I think a lot of people in Europe appreciate.
And I would argue that's exactly the case. Having been in startup that seriously looked at expanding in the US vs expanding in the rest of the EU (it expanded into the US), I'm confident to say the US is far more homogenous. Interestingly that doesn't necessarily mean that it's easier for an EU company to expand the US rather than the EU. But it does mean that EU startups have a much larger bump in the road than US companies when they're expanding.
> Jury's still out on that one, Apple Music is making very large in roads, and Spotify is starting to struggle.
Large in roads amongst Apple customers or large in roads to the general market?
Large in roads amongst Apple customers or large in roads to the general market?
> That seems awfully defeatist. Spotify is winning in music, for example
I'm just a realist. Spotify is not big by comparison. I just looked up a list of the 30 most highly valuated America, and the least valuable was bigger than Spotify.
> European culture is more homogeneous than I think a lot of people in Europe appreciate
I've lived in both and it's just no comparison. What differences you find within the US you find within single European countries. The fact is that an American startup can target a huge, homogeneous and rich country with barely any extra work.
I'm just a realist. Spotify is not big by comparison. I just looked up a list of the 30 most highly valuated America, and the least valuable was bigger than Spotify.
> European culture is more homogeneous than I think a lot of people in Europe appreciate
I've lived in both and it's just no comparison. What differences you find within the US you find within single European countries. The fact is that an American startup can target a huge, homogeneous and rich country with barely any extra work.
Scandinavian countries have higher rates of entrepreneurship the US. No one cares about that though...
This fits in with my pet theory that universal healthcare would actually result in a huge explosion of entrepreneurship in the US.
Spotify has advertising and does sell its abilities to target segments of users.
> European culture is more homogeneous than I think a lot of people in Europe appreciate. And that's the root of the tech issues, in that the culture doesn't foster risk taking.
It's also a lot different than American culture -- I've long maintained that as far as cultural attitudes and preferences go, a person from New York has more in common with someone from Mexico City or Sao Paolo than someone from Paris or London.
It's also a lot different than American culture -- I've long maintained that as far as cultural attitudes and preferences go, a person from New York has more in common with someone from Mexico City or Sao Paolo than someone from Paris or London.
> as far as cultural attitudes and preferences go, a person from New York has more in common with someone from Mexico City or Sao Paolo than someone from Paris or London.
Interesting—do you mind expanding on this?
Interesting—do you mind expanding on this?
It's an interesting perspective but it doesn't quite capture the relationship here.
I believe most of those big companies fed from Europe but not only from a market perspective but from a technological perspective.
Contrary to what the media try to depict, most of the tech on which those companies are built were designed in Europe and most of the brain that lead them studied in Europe.
I believe Americans are the best to market an idea, as they mostly focus on optimizing for the product market fit. Which produce the biggest market capitalizations.
But long term planning is still mostly done in Europe as it's considered too expensive almost everwhere else in the world, particularly in the states where remnants from the cold war makes the concept of the government pooling money to fund big projects a politicaly incorrect idea.
So the next logical step will be that like last time Americans will not produce anything meaningful for next 20 years which will give the time to Europe to capitalize on their previous innovations and to produce the next generation of ideas, and the cycle will repeat.
But if we wanted to increase the pace of those innovations, some bipartite solutions could be imagined...
I believe most of those big companies fed from Europe but not only from a market perspective but from a technological perspective.
Contrary to what the media try to depict, most of the tech on which those companies are built were designed in Europe and most of the brain that lead them studied in Europe.
I believe Americans are the best to market an idea, as they mostly focus on optimizing for the product market fit. Which produce the biggest market capitalizations.
But long term planning is still mostly done in Europe as it's considered too expensive almost everwhere else in the world, particularly in the states where remnants from the cold war makes the concept of the government pooling money to fund big projects a politicaly incorrect idea.
So the next logical step will be that like last time Americans will not produce anything meaningful for next 20 years which will give the time to Europe to capitalize on their previous innovations and to produce the next generation of ideas, and the cycle will repeat.
But if we wanted to increase the pace of those innovations, some bipartite solutions could be imagined...
I am European and I live in the US. I would like to ask for more proof of your assertion that most of the tech on which big tech is built originated in Europe.
In the US it is taken for granted that there has been a virtuous cycle between public research money, research universities, venture capital and tech companies. My impression is that most of the tech originates in this ecosystem.
In the US it is taken for granted that there has been a virtuous cycle between public research money, research universities, venture capital and tech companies. My impression is that most of the tech originates in this ecosystem.
Russia, with a GDP about equivalent to Spain's, successfully nurtured its own infrastructure, search engine, social network, etc. The only thing hampering EU until now was lack of political will.
Russia is very different from a block of many countries with their own language/own culture...
Of course. However Russia shows what a single country of 150 millions inhabitants can do. There is enough money and potential users in German-speaking countries, or French-speaking countries, Spanish-speaking countries, etc to achieve similar outcomes easily.
> There is no way we can support massive tech companies such as Google, even if they would arise here as startups.
I don't see why not. The EU's GDP is almost as big as the USA's, and the EU has plenty of educated people who understand the relevant technologies.
> As such, the only reasonable thing to do is to slowly ween ourselves off American tech in favor of letting our our own grow, just like China did.
Yes. This needs to be done not just for web services and social networks, but for the whole technology stack including chips and operating systems.
I don't see why not. The EU's GDP is almost as big as the USA's, and the EU has plenty of educated people who understand the relevant technologies.
> As such, the only reasonable thing to do is to slowly ween ourselves off American tech in favor of letting our our own grow, just like China did.
Yes. This needs to be done not just for web services and social networks, but for the whole technology stack including chips and operating systems.
> I don't see why not.
Try convincing tens of thousands of engineers to learn Polish, Estonian or Dutch. Some will do it, or are fine living in a country without speaking the language, but surely it puts a wet blanket on job market mobility. It's a hard sell: "Come to Stockholm to work with us, learn a new language that is useless anywhere else, and adapt to our culture or be forever an outsider. Oh, and your next job might be in Denmark, so do it all over again."
Google has 120,000 employees today. You may find half of that in Germany, France or the UK, but not in the rest of the 40-ish countries scattered throughout the continent.
> Yes. This needs to be done not just for web services and social networks, but for the whole technology stack including chips and operating systems.
Totally agree, especially chips. This one is the hardest though.
Try convincing tens of thousands of engineers to learn Polish, Estonian or Dutch. Some will do it, or are fine living in a country without speaking the language, but surely it puts a wet blanket on job market mobility. It's a hard sell: "Come to Stockholm to work with us, learn a new language that is useless anywhere else, and adapt to our culture or be forever an outsider. Oh, and your next job might be in Denmark, so do it all over again."
Google has 120,000 employees today. You may find half of that in Germany, France or the UK, but not in the rest of the 40-ish countries scattered throughout the continent.
> Yes. This needs to be done not just for web services and social networks, but for the whole technology stack including chips and operating systems.
Totally agree, especially chips. This one is the hardest though.
Language requirements for tech jobs are often very relaxed. For many companies, English is sufficient, and if one spends enough time in a country to build a career, one will also learn to at least understand the language. In certain big, hip cities this might not even be necessary.
By the way, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are very similar to each other, and they are not tricky at all compared to German or Dutch. Most other rich EU countries are large enough that learning their language opens up lots of career possibilities. Eastern Europe is a different story. Many do well, but these countries still tend to suffer from a net brain drain towards the richer countries.
By the way, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are very similar to each other, and they are not tricky at all compared to German or Dutch. Most other rich EU countries are large enough that learning their language opens up lots of career possibilities. Eastern Europe is a different story. Many do well, but these countries still tend to suffer from a net brain drain towards the richer countries.
> including chips
ARM was until recently a European company. This is part of the dynamic - some companies in the US have huge piles of cash. If a European company gets successful enough, there'll be interest from a large US company in acquiring it.
ARM was until recently a European company. This is part of the dynamic - some companies in the US have huge piles of cash. If a European company gets successful enough, there'll be interest from a large US company in acquiring it.
> there are 50 very different countries on this continent with completely different languages and cultures. There is no way we can support massive tech companies such as Google, even if they would arise here as startups.
These 50 countries are so different (sarcasm) culturally and linguistically that in every single one of them almost everybody uses the same Google ;-)
I wouldn't mind using a Dutch search engine or a Portuguese social network if they were nearly as good.
I don't understand how is it harder to engineer a better search engine (or anything) in the EU than in the US.
These 50 countries are so different (sarcasm) culturally and linguistically that in every single one of them almost everybody uses the same Google ;-)
I wouldn't mind using a Dutch search engine or a Portuguese social network if they were nearly as good.
I don't understand how is it harder to engineer a better search engine (or anything) in the EU than in the US.
[deleted]
> Tech giants could be entirely banned from the EU market over "serious and repeated breaches of law," AFP reported.
If this comes to pass as described, this is a landslide shift in mentality. Paying fines for shady practices will no longer simply be the cost of doing business, but there's a real risk of being locked out of a major market.
If this comes to pass as described, this is a landslide shift in mentality. Paying fines for shady practices will no longer simply be the cost of doing business, but there's a real risk of being locked out of a major market.
I agree. Spain did this with river toxic waste. Companies found that it was cheaper to leak everything into the river and pay the fine than to fix the problem. Then the law was changed, if you pollute the river you need to shut down until is fixed. That works. Rivers health improved by a lot.
if the fine was the actual cleanup fee (which is an almost unlimited number given hor hard it is) then I think that would work too.
The risk is that too large fines are bankruptcy events so companies gamble on polluting and then shut down after making a few years of profit. Companies that get environmental permits such as mines or chemical industry, should have to deposit the money required to restore the environment - even after bankruptcy.
The risk is that too large fines are bankruptcy events so companies gamble on polluting and then shut down after making a few years of profit. Companies that get environmental permits such as mines or chemical industry, should have to deposit the money required to restore the environment - even after bankruptcy.
> too large fines are bankruptcy events so companies gamble on polluting and then shut down after making a few years of profit
It didn't happened like that. And it was not a fine, big or small. It just has to shutdown operations until the problem is fixed. So, it auto-scales with the size of the factory.
It works, it's proven, why not use it for tech ?
It didn't happened like that. And it was not a fine, big or small. It just has to shutdown operations until the problem is fixed. So, it auto-scales with the size of the factory.
It works, it's proven, why not use it for tech ?
I meant that’s what has happened a lot in the world with e.g. mines so it’s not a perfect solution for environmental problems, because bankrupt companies are handled by the public.
For tech there is obviously no environmental “cleanup” after bankruptcy.
For tech there is obviously no environmental “cleanup” after bankruptcy.
This is common practice in the mining industry - create a company for the specific mining operation, funnel the profits back into the parent company, and then let the cleanup costs bankrupt the operational company when the mine runs out.
It'd be interesting to see if the tech giants could use the same approach - create a child company in Europe, funnel the profits and user data back to the parent (offshore, of course), then let the regulatory fines bankrupt the child company. Repeat at will.
It'd be interesting to see if the tech giants could use the same approach - create a child company in Europe, funnel the profits and user data back to the parent (offshore, of course), then let the regulatory fines bankrupt the child company. Repeat at will.
That form of shenanigans works only so long as the government is willing to play along, and depends on part on opaque corporate structures.
The EU doesn't seem willing to play along, and branding is important for tech companies. We'll never see a search engine that's secretly Google.
The EU doesn't seem willing to play along, and branding is important for tech companies. We'll never see a search engine that's secretly Google.
[deleted]
You probably need to fix the international tax treaties to really fix it. Even with the EU, they have a tough time getting Ireland in agreement not to help Apple and Google evade taxes.
Yeah there is no realistic full cleanup. Some of the pollution reaches the ocean before anyone even notices, much less brings the court process to a conclusion. So, we need to fix it before the emissions are made.
This is not just limited to toxic waste in rivers. If nuclear power plant operators had to pay forward for all future expenses required to manage their waste products, nuclear power would never have been viable.
Indeed, so that’s why it’s basically a nation state venture even if private corporations are part of it. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, but socialized risk should mean socialized profits too.
Isn’t this the purpose of Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Funds? More here: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/d...
meh, they would still have needed the weapons material, so it would have cost more to make nukes but not made the whole industry unviable.
Yes. That's exactly why nuclear energy doesn't work as something done by private industry, and must instead be done by the public sector.
> Paying fines for shady practices will no longer simply be the cost of doing business, but there's a real risk of being locked out of a major market.
Yes! And that's how it should be.
A fine is just a permission slip for rich people.
Since e.g. Apple holds something like $200b in cash, fines are anti-competitive in this field. A small player can't afford to risk a fine; Apple can pay any level of fine, if it ultimately needs to.
Yes! And that's how it should be.
A fine is just a permission slip for rich people.
Since e.g. Apple holds something like $200b in cash, fines are anti-competitive in this field. A small player can't afford to risk a fine; Apple can pay any level of fine, if it ultimately needs to.
This is a great start.
If (in the US) corporations are people, then clearly corporations should face the prospect of ending their existence if they make an egregious-enough violation: the corporate death penalty.
If (in the US) corporations are people, then clearly corporations should face the prospect of ending their existence if they make an egregious-enough violation: the corporate death penalty.
Sure, people will love the party that got Google or Facebook banned
That's the beauty of it being an EU-level regulation: each national party can plausibly deny being "the party that got Facebook banned", and pretends it's "because of those technocrats in Brussels."
That being said, of course Google and FB are never going to be banned in the EU. They'll lobby to death to get the regulation to be "reasonable", and they'll mostly comply because they want their part of the advertising market, and they'll pay the fines when they get caught.
That being said, of course Google and FB are never going to be banned in the EU. They'll lobby to death to get the regulation to be "reasonable", and they'll mostly comply because they want their part of the advertising market, and they'll pay the fines when they get caught.
Ah, yes, the "beauty" of unaccountable government action.
Hardly. EU legislation generally needs a majority from the EU parliament (directly elected) and a qualified majority from the Council.
The thing is that they're not actually unaccountable. You vote for them.
Ill take it over unaccountable private action, at least there is a chance of influencing government policy.
Good luck influencing Google or Facebook's policy.
Good luck influencing Google or Facebook's policy.
> That being said, of course Google and FB are never going to be banned in the EU. They'll lobby to death to get the regulation to be "reasonable", and they'll mostly comply because they want their part of the advertising market, and they'll pay the fines when they get caught.
Sure they can be banned EU-wide, although it can obviously be circumvented by the ambitious. Have you been paying attention to EU politics lately regarding the digital single market? Because the EU already has huge behind-the-scenes plans (generally unannounced) for EU based platforms and developments.
Sure they can be banned EU-wide, although it can obviously be circumvented by the ambitious. Have you been paying attention to EU politics lately regarding the digital single market? Because the EU already has huge behind-the-scenes plans (generally unannounced) for EU based platforms and developments.
Do you have any resources that you could share on those behind-the-scene plans?
> each national party can plausibly deny being "the party that got Facebook banned", and pretends it's "because of those technocrats in Brussels."
Given that Brexit is looming, this doesn't sound very sustainable. If the people feel the EU's power is no longer legitimate, there may be consequences.
Given that Brexit is looming, this doesn't sound very sustainable. If the people feel the EU's power is no longer legitimate, there may be consequences.
I don't think that the legitimacy of the E.U. will be challenged overnight over a single decision regarding Google or Facebook.
Brexit is just the latest chapter in a long European history. The same is true for the Union and the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. European history isn't finished as long as there are Europeans.
The U.K. wasn't a founding member of the E.U. nor has it ever been a stalwart partner of the E.U. ever since it joined the Union back in There has always been contention in the U.K. about being a E.U. member ever since it joined through the 1972 Treaty of Accession. The U.K. even held a referendum as early as 1975 about the question of remaining in the then E.C.C. (67.33% voted remain)
The same is true for many other E.U. members, notably newer members who joined the union in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact after 1991. Their incentive to join the union was just as much geo-strategic as it was economic. That doesn't mean there weren't voices opposition within those countries as well as elsewhere in the union.
These two companies coming under scrutiny isn't just because they monopolize a consumer market. It's because they enable forces of contention - nationalism, identity politics - that have led to some very dark chapters in the recent European history.
The E.U. such as it is today, originates from ideas that gestated right after WWII under such proponents as Winston Churchill, and the primary incentive was... creating a stable structure for peace on the continent. The E.C.S.C. as founded by the original 6 founding members (Schumann) was about consolidating the coal and steel markets exactly because those were enabling factors during both wars. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Background
And so, if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged.
Brexit is just the latest chapter in a long European history. The same is true for the Union and the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. European history isn't finished as long as there are Europeans.
The U.K. wasn't a founding member of the E.U. nor has it ever been a stalwart partner of the E.U. ever since it joined the Union back in There has always been contention in the U.K. about being a E.U. member ever since it joined through the 1972 Treaty of Accession. The U.K. even held a referendum as early as 1975 about the question of remaining in the then E.C.C. (67.33% voted remain)
The same is true for many other E.U. members, notably newer members who joined the union in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact after 1991. Their incentive to join the union was just as much geo-strategic as it was economic. That doesn't mean there weren't voices opposition within those countries as well as elsewhere in the union.
These two companies coming under scrutiny isn't just because they monopolize a consumer market. It's because they enable forces of contention - nationalism, identity politics - that have led to some very dark chapters in the recent European history.
The E.U. such as it is today, originates from ideas that gestated right after WWII under such proponents as Winston Churchill, and the primary incentive was... creating a stable structure for peace on the continent. The E.C.S.C. as founded by the original 6 founding members (Schumann) was about consolidating the coal and steel markets exactly because those were enabling factors during both wars. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Background
And so, if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged.
Worth remembering too that De Gaulle's France blocked the UK's attempts to join the EU 3 times before grudgingly allowing membership.
Right wing, often foreign owned, sections of the British media have been able to use that and other outright lies* to present the EU as against British interests whilst furthering their own agendas.
In a way, the UK tabloid press is like a precursor to the polemic fake news of social media. In the past politicians would suck up to foreign businessmen like Rupert Murdock and he would attack their rivals. The EU probably doesn't want to see that repeated elsewhere with Zuckerberg.
* When Boris Johnson was a full-time journalist he often made up populist stories. One well know example is the EU attempting to ban prawn cocktail flavoured crisps. Completely untrue and only written to get the naive frothing at the mouth in anger and advance his career. He repeated that lie, amongst others like his famous NHS bus poster, during the Brexit campaign.
Right wing, often foreign owned, sections of the British media have been able to use that and other outright lies* to present the EU as against British interests whilst furthering their own agendas.
In a way, the UK tabloid press is like a precursor to the polemic fake news of social media. In the past politicians would suck up to foreign businessmen like Rupert Murdock and he would attack their rivals. The EU probably doesn't want to see that repeated elsewhere with Zuckerberg.
* When Boris Johnson was a full-time journalist he often made up populist stories. One well know example is the EU attempting to ban prawn cocktail flavoured crisps. Completely untrue and only written to get the naive frothing at the mouth in anger and advance his career. He repeated that lie, amongst others like his famous NHS bus poster, during the Brexit campaign.
> I don't think that the legitimacy of the E.U. will be challenged overnight over a single decision regarding Google or Facebook.
I figured from phtrivier's account of things that they were suggesting it's a political pattern for national leaders to blame the EU as unrepresentative. If it were a one-off I'd agree.
> if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged
My point was about undermining perceived legitimacy. I've not commented on whether the regulations themselves are a good idea. Do you think phtrivier's account of things is mistaken?
I figured from phtrivier's account of things that they were suggesting it's a political pattern for national leaders to blame the EU as unrepresentative. If it were a one-off I'd agree.
> if the E.U. moves against Google and Facebook, it's because it feels these companies are evolving into a threat against the first principles from which the Union has emerged
My point was about undermining perceived legitimacy. I've not commented on whether the regulations themselves are a good idea. Do you think phtrivier's account of things is mistaken?
> Do you think phtrivier's account of things is mistaken?
Well, he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics. What really matters are the incentives, interests, values, trade offs, tactics, available opportunities, risks,... that prompt a leader to use that device.
The E.U. is very much a representative body. Every 4 years, there are European elections and every European citizen does have a vote in those elections. And it's perfectly possible to start a so-called europarty. [1] The European Pirate Party - part of the Greens-European Free Alliance, is an example. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pirate_Party
Moreover, a party could be nationally in the opposition, but be part of a political group holding a large chunk of seats in the E.U. parliament. Plus, as a party, you could be for and against particular policies at the same time.
The problem with phtrivier's account is that it surmises that politics must consistently operate from a particular, usually unmentioned or implied, moral high ground. The reality of democracy - and by extension any form of cooperation between individuals, groups, parties and nations - is that it can only function if one is willing to compromise and show pragmatism in which battles to pick, or where to draw lines in the sand.
The very real consequences of confusing rhetoric with pragmatism - and, ultimately, failing to display the latter - are clear in the second and third order effects as a result of Brexit on economic, political, geostrategic and social interests held by both the U.K. and the E.U.
Well, he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics. What really matters are the incentives, interests, values, trade offs, tactics, available opportunities, risks,... that prompt a leader to use that device.
The E.U. is very much a representative body. Every 4 years, there are European elections and every European citizen does have a vote in those elections. And it's perfectly possible to start a so-called europarty. [1] The European Pirate Party - part of the Greens-European Free Alliance, is an example. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pirate_Party
Moreover, a party could be nationally in the opposition, but be part of a political group holding a large chunk of seats in the E.U. parliament. Plus, as a party, you could be for and against particular policies at the same time.
The problem with phtrivier's account is that it surmises that politics must consistently operate from a particular, usually unmentioned or implied, moral high ground. The reality of democracy - and by extension any form of cooperation between individuals, groups, parties and nations - is that it can only function if one is willing to compromise and show pragmatism in which battles to pick, or where to draw lines in the sand.
The very real consequences of confusing rhetoric with pragmatism - and, ultimately, failing to display the latter - are clear in the second and third order effects as a result of Brexit on economic, political, geostrategic and social interests held by both the U.K. and the E.U.
> he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics
Right, but that's the topic I was responding to. If politicians are making a habit of blaming things on the EU and implying the EU is unaccountable, that strikes me as a problem worth taking seriously. Presumably it wouldn't work in the first place if the people had unshakeable confidence in the legitimacy of the EU.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
Sure, but I wasn't commenting on this. My point was a specific one about perceived legitimacy, without which there can be no EU. Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
Right, but that's the topic I was responding to. If politicians are making a habit of blaming things on the EU and implying the EU is unaccountable, that strikes me as a problem worth taking seriously. Presumably it wouldn't work in the first place if the people had unshakeable confidence in the legitimacy of the EU.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
Sure, but I wasn't commenting on this. My point was a specific one about perceived legitimacy, without which there can be no EU. Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
> he only points to a specific rhetorical device used in politics
I have to clarify that I only witnessed the rethorical device being used in France, mostly in the late 90's / early 20s. It was mostly used "informally" (through dog whistle, if you want) , and usually simply by "ignoring" the debates in Brussels and hide behind the commission after decisions had been made. Only the most nationalist parties would blame almost anything on the EU. Maybe other countries behaved differently.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
The fact that the Parliement is the most obviously elected body, and the one with the least amount of power always bothers me. Although it always makes me giggle to hear this complain from right-wingers in France, where we have a Parliement that has been de-facto powerless because of the way we elect our MPs and President. Anyway, another matter it is !
I have to clarify that I only witnessed the rethorical device being used in France, mostly in the late 90's / early 20s. It was mostly used "informally" (through dog whistle, if you want) , and usually simply by "ignoring" the debates in Brussels and hide behind the commission after decisions had been made. Only the most nationalist parties would blame almost anything on the EU. Maybe other countries behaved differently.
> The E.U. is very much a representative body
The fact that the Parliement is the most obviously elected body, and the one with the least amount of power always bothers me. Although it always makes me giggle to hear this complain from right-wingers in France, where we have a Parliement that has been de-facto powerless because of the way we elect our MPs and President. Anyway, another matter it is !
Those points are interconnected.
Yes, the rhetoric is problematic. But politicians can be held accountable by the people who give them a mandate based on election results. The public debate, journalism, education and the voting booth are instrumental in doing that.
These things aren't self-evident though.
They are really expressions of emerging collective behaviour. And that behaviour is always a function of a multitude of social, economical, political, cultural, religious, geographical,... factors.
Authoritarians don't necessarily take power through a violent revolution. It just as easily happens by simply exploiting weaknesses in the economy, society, financial system, the legal and the constitutional framework to a point where they arrive into power. Weaknesses such as economic and social inequality, widespread resentment, poverty,...
Many authoritarians and populist leaders derive their legitimacy from the same democratic processes that also lead to a lawful state which upholds moral values such as basic human rights.
"Democracy" in itself isn't a guarantee towards a net "good" or "bad" outcome. That's just value attribution. Democracy is just a form of governance which could just as well lead to less then desirable outcomes.
Democracy doesn't protect society from bad actors who spout populist rhetoric. Nope, society can only protect itself as long as enough individuals are willing to call that rhetoric out for what it is: damaging and hurtful. Your "democratic" rights are only worth anything to the extent that each member of society is willing to back them.
And that requires believing in the value - the legitimacy - of the E.U. as a shared project.
> Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
Well, during last year's election cycle, I did get presented a voting ballot that allowed me to directly elect members to the European Parliament. The candidate I voted for, did got elected.
... which leads me to believe that, yes indeed, the E.U. is "actually democratic".
And as far as I can tell, the fact that the E.U. provides a legal framework that allows me to enact my individual rights. Such as the GDPR. Not just from Facebook or Google. But also from public authorities itself.
I perceive that as a good thing.
Yes, the rhetoric is problematic. But politicians can be held accountable by the people who give them a mandate based on election results. The public debate, journalism, education and the voting booth are instrumental in doing that.
These things aren't self-evident though.
They are really expressions of emerging collective behaviour. And that behaviour is always a function of a multitude of social, economical, political, cultural, religious, geographical,... factors.
Authoritarians don't necessarily take power through a violent revolution. It just as easily happens by simply exploiting weaknesses in the economy, society, financial system, the legal and the constitutional framework to a point where they arrive into power. Weaknesses such as economic and social inequality, widespread resentment, poverty,...
Many authoritarians and populist leaders derive their legitimacy from the same democratic processes that also lead to a lawful state which upholds moral values such as basic human rights.
"Democracy" in itself isn't a guarantee towards a net "good" or "bad" outcome. That's just value attribution. Democracy is just a form of governance which could just as well lead to less then desirable outcomes.
Democracy doesn't protect society from bad actors who spout populist rhetoric. Nope, society can only protect itself as long as enough individuals are willing to call that rhetoric out for what it is: damaging and hurtful. Your "democratic" rights are only worth anything to the extent that each member of society is willing to back them.
And that requires believing in the value - the legitimacy - of the E.U. as a shared project.
> Whether the EU is actually democratic, is another matter.
Well, during last year's election cycle, I did get presented a voting ballot that allowed me to directly elect members to the European Parliament. The candidate I voted for, did got elected.
... which leads me to believe that, yes indeed, the E.U. is "actually democratic".
And as far as I can tell, the fact that the E.U. provides a legal framework that allows me to enact my individual rights. Such as the GDPR. Not just from Facebook or Google. But also from public authorities itself.
I perceive that as a good thing.
Losing the EU-skeptic members could in the end be a good thing for the EU.
Not when that EU skeptic member that left was also huge contributor to the EU budget, housed the second biggest financial center in the world, was the EU's biggest tech hub and is a five-eye nuclear military power with worldwide influence.
I'm not from the UK but let's face it, the EU cannot afford to lose another big member like Germany or France. Smaller members can be Euro skeptics all they want as they'll just talk the talk but can't afford to walk the walk as they benefit the most from the EU.
Sure, the UK never did like to play ball with the rest of the EU and had to be let go but that doesn't mean it's a win for either side. A weak and divided EU only benefits China and Russia and to a lesser degree, the US.
I'm not from the UK but let's face it, the EU cannot afford to lose another big member like Germany or France. Smaller members can be Euro skeptics all they want as they'll just talk the talk but can't afford to walk the walk as they benefit the most from the EU.
Sure, the UK never did like to play ball with the rest of the EU and had to be let go but that doesn't mean it's a win for either side. A weak and divided EU only benefits China and Russia and to a lesser degree, the US.
While it's true that the UK departure is certainly impactful to the EU, it is not going to be as simple for the UK as the EU-antagonists (I hate the word "euroskeptic") make it believe
As a reminder, Montreal was the biggest and most influential city in Canada before the independence movement and it lost a big chunk of influence even when the referendum went for No.
As a reminder, Montreal was the biggest and most influential city in Canada before the independence movement and it lost a big chunk of influence even when the referendum went for No.
Actually, the biggest issue with Montréal really was the Loi 101, that enforced French in the workplace. Montréal becoming smaller wasn't exactly an unexpected change from that.
That's akin to turning a blind eye for the money - kinda like political lobbying by large companies that we see play out in many countries.
Leaner is meaner and the UK leaving - sure if it was just for the money then that wasn't a relationship and the children have already grown up so to speak.
What does worry me a bit is that tech/large companies have become in effect their own political parties with the amount of influence and impact they have had over the years. So any move by the EU now to rein them in, is a good thing and honestly, good to see that political lobbying by companies has some limits.
2021 is going to be a whole better year for all.
Leaner is meaner and the UK leaving - sure if it was just for the money then that wasn't a relationship and the children have already grown up so to speak.
What does worry me a bit is that tech/large companies have become in effect their own political parties with the amount of influence and impact they have had over the years. So any move by the EU now to rein them in, is a good thing and honestly, good to see that political lobbying by companies has some limits.
2021 is going to be a whole better year for all.
Brexit happened on 31.01.2020.
It did, technically.
But the transition arrangements mean everything of importance changes at the end of 31.12.2020.
So far it's just a lot of government adverts telling us how things are going to be worse and to prepare for it. How much extra paperwork, tariffs, expenses, licenses, applications-for-permission etc there will be come 31st December, how we can no longer conduct some kinds of business, how professional qualifications cease to be valid in Britain after 31st December, and how some people who are currently employed can no longer be employed from 1st January.
All the adverts and policy effects that actually affect people are focused on 31.12.2020.
(Reading between the lines it also means some people will no longer be permitted a bank account or the ability to rent a roof starting in the middle of next year, though the government prefers not to headline that unpalatable truth.)
On 31.12.2020 things will change in a way that affects some of us harshly indeed.
I'm British.
As far as I'm concerned, Brexit proper happens for me on 31.12.2020 because that's the day I'm deprived of my previous life-long right to work, study and move my life to the other EU countries, which I have previously used, and hoped to use again :'(
I absolutely hate that such a major freedom, and my family's freedom, and my EU citizenship, is being taken away so forcefully against my consent and without me breaking any laws.
I was considering leaving Britain and emigrating to another EU country this year under EU-citizenship-grandfathering terms, but Covid made it infeasible. If the Brexit transition period had been extended I might have been able to do it next year, but it will cease to be possible after 31.12.2020.
What a Christmas present.
On 31st this year, around midnight, many of us will mark a day of darkness and sadness, as doors close on our life choices, and the Britain some of us had some sort of love and pride in some years ago finally ceases to exist.
But the transition arrangements mean everything of importance changes at the end of 31.12.2020.
So far it's just a lot of government adverts telling us how things are going to be worse and to prepare for it. How much extra paperwork, tariffs, expenses, licenses, applications-for-permission etc there will be come 31st December, how we can no longer conduct some kinds of business, how professional qualifications cease to be valid in Britain after 31st December, and how some people who are currently employed can no longer be employed from 1st January.
All the adverts and policy effects that actually affect people are focused on 31.12.2020.
(Reading between the lines it also means some people will no longer be permitted a bank account or the ability to rent a roof starting in the middle of next year, though the government prefers not to headline that unpalatable truth.)
On 31.12.2020 things will change in a way that affects some of us harshly indeed.
I'm British.
As far as I'm concerned, Brexit proper happens for me on 31.12.2020 because that's the day I'm deprived of my previous life-long right to work, study and move my life to the other EU countries, which I have previously used, and hoped to use again :'(
I absolutely hate that such a major freedom, and my family's freedom, and my EU citizenship, is being taken away so forcefully against my consent and without me breaking any laws.
I was considering leaving Britain and emigrating to another EU country this year under EU-citizenship-grandfathering terms, but Covid made it infeasible. If the Brexit transition period had been extended I might have been able to do it next year, but it will cease to be possible after 31.12.2020.
What a Christmas present.
On 31st this year, around midnight, many of us will mark a day of darkness and sadness, as doors close on our life choices, and the Britain some of us had some sort of love and pride in some years ago finally ceases to exist.
Google would upset a lot of people, but I think quite a lot of people would be quite happy with a Facebook ban. Even quite heavy users of Facebook/Instagram seem to recognise the unhealthy effects it has on them.
More likely the EU would negotiate with the companies rather than outright ban them.
More likely the EU would negotiate with the companies rather than outright ban them.
That's the point of doing it at EU level (and I think a contributing factor to Brexit): there is no party doing it, it is done via consensus on EU level.
And on the local level, the politicians blame the EU for it.
> And on the local level, the politicians blame the EU for it.
Ultimately, local politicians are the EU's decision-makers. MEPs sit as members of national political parties; the European Council are heads of national governments.
Passing the buck to the EU is a weak position, and in general a mistruth.
There aren't many issues divides nations in the EU from each other - most, if not all, decisions that the EU takes have divisions within nations (between the political groups), not without (between national groups).
You can argue that "blame the EU" is a position that the UK government has taken successfully - continually blaming the EU for any problems that they have created themselves (sometimes blaming the EU despite incompetently avoiding the EU's clear recommendations).
But, now that the UK has left the EU, they don't have anyone left to blame for their own poor planning and decisions. We'll see how that pans out.
Ultimately, local politicians are the EU's decision-makers. MEPs sit as members of national political parties; the European Council are heads of national governments.
Passing the buck to the EU is a weak position, and in general a mistruth.
There aren't many issues divides nations in the EU from each other - most, if not all, decisions that the EU takes have divisions within nations (between the political groups), not without (between national groups).
You can argue that "blame the EU" is a position that the UK government has taken successfully - continually blaming the EU for any problems that they have created themselves (sometimes blaming the EU despite incompetently avoiding the EU's clear recommendations).
But, now that the UK has left the EU, they don't have anyone left to blame for their own poor planning and decisions. We'll see how that pans out.
[deleted]
Google is tricky, but I doubt
Facebook will be missed much.
Facebook the app, maybe not so much in Europe, but WhatsApp is pretty much the defacto cross platform messaging app here that everyone uses and also Facebook's Messenger app is used quite a lot for group chats where you don't have everyone's phone numbers.
Well lots of Europeans use Facebook. No one will die if you block it, but there will be somewhat of a void for many services people got used to which would be gone.
Amazon got suspended for a while during COVID times, people weren't rioting in the streets over it
(they were still rioting over other issues, just not Amazon)
(they were still rioting over other issues, just not Amazon)
When the privacy commission in my country acted against facebook, it retaliated by issuing a country wide ban [1].
As far as I can tell, this had no noticable effect on the political parties. I think you are overestimating the power of large tech companies to influence foreign EU democracies.
There are other examples, including one involving google, where they tried to block access to certain services and expected the population to blame their government.
Unless you can give me a counter example, I think it's more likely people will blame the tech company.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/9c9bf084-994f-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f...
As far as I can tell, this had no noticable effect on the political parties. I think you are overestimating the power of large tech companies to influence foreign EU democracies.
There are other examples, including one involving google, where they tried to block access to certain services and expected the population to blame their government.
Unless you can give me a counter example, I think it's more likely people will blame the tech company.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/9c9bf084-994f-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f...
[deleted]
It's not like the products will disappear. Rather they will likely be split into different companies that wields far less power. I highly doubt the average european consumer will care if whatsapp is its own company again or instagram for that matter. Likewise with the various google product groups.
Somebody has to commit hard decisions in order to get rid of USA based overseers.
What I'm afraid is that sooner or later they will ramp up these laws until Europens are by law forbidden to use these products...
I hope they do. That would allow EU competitors to appear and grow (at which point the GAFAMs can be let in again).
You are shortsighted if you don't know what this would lead to...
What shady practices exactly?
Buying competitors, actions which are already well regulated and overseen by the FTC? And European bodies?
And then ... ?
Giving away software for free?
The populism is getting way out of hand.
First, if there are some anti-competitive issues to address, the EU should do that, but it's hard to do in retrospect.
Google / Chrome / Android is an obvious one, Apple's issue with App Store another, but Facebook / Insta / What's a much less obvious one.
Second, the real underlying issue is Europe's failure to produce anything material in this landscape. They have almost no winners and are being dominated, these are the acts of system with a weak hand. If SAP and a bunch of other European companies dominated the US landscape, this legislation would be different.
Buying competitors, actions which are already well regulated and overseen by the FTC? And European bodies?
And then ... ?
Giving away software for free?
The populism is getting way out of hand.
First, if there are some anti-competitive issues to address, the EU should do that, but it's hard to do in retrospect.
Google / Chrome / Android is an obvious one, Apple's issue with App Store another, but Facebook / Insta / What's a much less obvious one.
Second, the real underlying issue is Europe's failure to produce anything material in this landscape. They have almost no winners and are being dominated, these are the acts of system with a weak hand. If SAP and a bunch of other European companies dominated the US landscape, this legislation would be different.
> Companies favoring their own services could be outlawed.
Apple would have to significantly redesign their entire OSs if this comes to pass. Will be really interesting to see!
Apple would have to significantly redesign their entire OSs if this comes to pass. Will be really interesting to see!
There are a lot of unexpected side effects lurking in those sort of decisions. For example Apple developed Pages, Numbers and Keynote because nobody else was able to compete against Microsoft. It's hard to see the computing environment would be better off without those products.
You can argue that someone else would fill that gap but they didn't really seem to be doing that before Apple stepped in. In fact I would guess that Apple would have preferred not to have developed them, it's not as if they generate any direct revenue.
You can argue that someone else would fill that gap but they didn't really seem to be doing that before Apple stepped in. In fact I would guess that Apple would have preferred not to have developed them, it's not as if they generate any direct revenue.
It only dictates you’re not allowed to favor your own products. I think Apple is already in a good position here since these are all on the normal App Store next to MS Office. The only thing they could not do is unfairly promote them on the store and ship them pre-installed.
Whats even the point of becoming a Google or Apple if then some clueless bureaucrat gets to tell you what you are allowed to do with your market position? Nobody is stopping other companies to build their own Android or iPhone, its working as intended, no reason to do anything.
> Whats even the point of becoming a Google or Apple if then some clueless bureaucrat gets to tell you what you are allowed to do with your market position?
I think you may have inadvertently stumbled on the point of these laws.
The EU doesn't want companies getting to Google or Apple scale, and all the power that amasses with it, without it being possible to ensure they're holding up EU ideals, rather than their own.
I think you may have inadvertently stumbled on the point of these laws.
The EU doesn't want companies getting to Google or Apple scale, and all the power that amasses with it, without it being possible to ensure they're holding up EU ideals, rather than their own.
Yup. I'm waiting for an Iphone/Android competitor, but all of incumbents are half-baked solutions.
The sanest thing you can do is use LineageOS, but I can't really trust the LineageOS team since the april fools fiasco.
The lack of a third option is simply because of incompetence, not monopoly.
The sanest thing you can do is use LineageOS, but I can't really trust the LineageOS team since the april fools fiasco.
The lack of a third option is simply because of incompetence, not monopoly.
I said incumbent, but I meant the opposite. Stupid me.
This is an incredibly hard thing to legislate. Almost every company does some level of vertical integration, and it's often good to the consumer. Still you want to prevent locking down and monopolies or even oligopolies.
Would Apple itself be here if Microsoft didn't port Office to their OS?
Would Apple itself be here if Microsoft didn't port Office to their OS?
European anti trust law is a lot simpler than US since there are a lot less details and judges get to use more common sense when judging companies. For example EU already fixed the credit card duopoly while US still hasn't managed to do anything about it. Note EU didn't broke it up, just force them to massively reduce their fees, it is very likely they will do something similar with the app store.
And now if you live in the EU you don't have the CC rewards people in the US do. Congrats, you traded off consumer welfare for small business interests.
Vertical integration is fine, just require them to open up the exact same APIs to third party developers so they are not at a disadvantage.
Would this mean Apple would need to sell M1 chips for non-macOS use?
Not sure if you're saying that bad thing or not, but I think the answer is almost certainly no.
But there could be a requirement that Apple open up their laptops to other OSs (and not just via virtualization). And honestly I don't see why that would be a bad thing.
But there could be a requirement that Apple open up their laptops to other OSs (and not just via virtualization). And honestly I don't see why that would be a bad thing.
But the bootloader is already open as far as I know, the real issue is drivers.
You probably can't force them to write the drivers for other OS, but you could presumably force them to document the hardware.
You probably can't force them to write the drivers for other OS, but you could presumably force them to document the hardware.
I don't know if it'd be a bad thing or not, was just wondering out loud. I could see reasonable arguments for both sides of that issue.
Microsoft ported part of Office to Windows. Excel for Mac is from 1985, the first Windows version from 1987 (you could say both evolved from DOS Multiplan, but that was on Mac, too); Word was on DOS in 1983, Mac in 1985, Windows in 1989.
They can probably be easily compliant if they allow alternative app stores. Nothing else needs to change
They would simply have to move a bunch of frameworks from /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks to /System/Library/Frameworks, remove signature checks, and provide documentation.
What I dont understand is why they keep allowing mergers for those huge companies in the first place.
Maybe there should be a certain company size where they are not allowed to merge with new companies any more!!
I think a majority of mergers 'just happen' because they are not challenged. To stop a merger, some regulating body needs to hear about it and take action in time. They can also investigate and dismantle monopolies after the fact, but then we see long legal battles.
Also size-based limits would be hard to create/enforce. IBM has about 350K employees wordwide. McDonalds has about 200K. Google has about 100K. Amazon 1.1M. Do you look at market cap? The industry specifically?
It's a complex problem, that's why there is no simple solution.
Also size-based limits would be hard to create/enforce. IBM has about 350K employees wordwide. McDonalds has about 200K. Google has about 100K. Amazon 1.1M. Do you look at market cap? The industry specifically?
It's a complex problem, that's why there is no simple solution.
A lot of large mergers and acquisitons were, in fact, reviewed and approved by bodies that exist to do precisely that. Facebook's acquisition of Instagram was reviewed. I expect their acquisition of Whatsapp was as well.
Of course it was reviewed, it's when they provided misleading information on the usage of data, and later got fined for it.
"Mergers: Commission fines Facebook €110 million for providing misleading information about WhatsApp takeover" https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_...
"Mergers: Commission fines Facebook €110 million for providing misleading information about WhatsApp takeover" https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_...
> Facebook and other firms have warned that the more regulation could prompt the company to move away from Europe, which could cost jobs and block access to its site for EU users.
Please, please make it happen...
Please, please make it happen...
Well put it like this: In China the government dictate what you can see and the EU approach is that the government legislate what you can be shown.
I don't see any of the major players having a hissy fit and walking away from that kinda user-base. Though the prospect of large companies hiding behind firewalls to protect themselves from EU users, does bemuse me.
I don't see any of the major players having a hissy fit and walking away from that kinda user-base. Though the prospect of large companies hiding behind firewalls to protect themselves from EU users, does bemuse me.
Wouldn't this just lead to EU version of facebook creating more wealth for the EU instead of shipping it off to the US? Am I missing something?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I think that unlike some other markets (China and to some extent other Asian countries / Russia / etc) it's surprising how dependent the EU is on US corporations for digital services. As said the EU anti-monopolies chief Margrethe Vestager: "In the past few weeks we have all been fascinated by what is possible digitally. But the coronavirus showed how dependent we are on US corporations, and that was a wake-up call,".
I might be overthinking this but I find her wording a bit concerning if they weren't fully awake to this dependency pre-pandemic. Everyone knows where Microsoft/Google/Amazon/Apple are based and these companies generally are operating under their own names so it's not like a shady conglomerate who owns everything without you realising.
Anecdotal and hardly conclusive but I work in UK local government and we get a weekly email from our web proxy showing the top 50 domains by proxy traffic in that period. The usual split is something like 42 domains that are linked to US companies, 5 are UK companies with the remainder being the rest of the world (including the EU). That's been the case for years now.
Anecdotal and hardly conclusive but I work in UK local government and we get a weekly email from our web proxy showing the top 50 domains by proxy traffic in that period. The usual split is something like 42 domains that are linked to US companies, 5 are UK companies with the remainder being the rest of the world (including the EU). That's been the case for years now.
It gives cover to those who dismissed the concern pre-covid.
It's common for a pragmatic 'Cassandra' to point to the newest evidence as permission for people to finally wake up to the problem rather than berating them for not paying attention any earlier.
It's common for a pragmatic 'Cassandra' to point to the newest evidence as permission for people to finally wake up to the problem rather than berating them for not paying attention any earlier.
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense with all the poltician's discussions over the recent years about the GAFA tax. (Whoopsie, we dropped the M. Can't be antagonizing the maker of our hospital and army software!)
I think you're correct. Most EU politicians did not work with technology a lot, they prefered travelling and having chats with cabernet and camembert.
Surely the pandemic forced them to use some more tech.
Surely the pandemic forced them to use some more tech.
Deutsche Welle's English site looks like a useful one to broaden my news repertoire.
It is part of the German public broadcasting but as I just learned actually not financed by the fee every German household has to pay. It is financed directly by the German state.
I will use this in the future as an example for this simpler (and cheaper) system working just fine.
I will use this in the future as an example for this simpler (and cheaper) system working just fine.
> It is financed directly by the German state.
I would add that despite the funding coming from the government,
> The work of DW is regulated by the Deutsche Welle Act, meaning that content is intended to be independent of government influence [0]
Specifically, the supervisory board of Deutsche Welle consists of 7 members that get elected by the parliament and the acting federal government and another 10 members that come from non-profit organizations like labor unions, religious groups, cultural and sports organizations, among others.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle#Aufsichtsgremie...
I would add that despite the funding coming from the government,
> The work of DW is regulated by the Deutsche Welle Act, meaning that content is intended to be independent of government influence [0]
Specifically, the supervisory board of Deutsche Welle consists of 7 members that get elected by the parliament and the acting federal government and another 10 members that come from non-profit organizations like labor unions, religious groups, cultural and sports organizations, among others.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle#Aufsichtsgremie...
What amazed me is the amount of languages it is available in, something like 20+.
EU-wide regulation might make sense to give a "stick" to existing giants, but what about creating an EU-wide "carrot" for European companies to become giants (in the form of unified market and capital)?
Ms. Vestager kind of glosses over this (2:40 min into the interview video).
Ms. Vestager kind of glosses over this (2:40 min into the interview video).
Everyone's (EU, India etc.) super impressed by how China was able to homegrow a couple of tech giants and wants in on the action. This is more about having EU be competitive in the tech space than it is about really protecting the interests of ordinary Europeans.
They're well within their rights to do it of course, that's how trade works, but I expect the US to defend American companies from unfair sanctions like this one.
They're well within their rights to do it of course, that's how trade works, but I expect the US to defend American companies from unfair sanctions like this one.
Competition doesn't even arise in the US now, it's monopolies and rent extractors all the way. If some of them are forced to break up or be outright outlawed, that should be enough of a carrot for local competitors.
It’s hard to become an European unified Internet market because of the language barriers.
OK, bear with me here. So, a US company can create a huge market for itself in the EU, but a EU company can't?
Seems that language and regulations are not the barriers here.
Even US companies aren't that "unified", they're hailing from a specific state (often California) and have nothing to do with the other 49. You could easily swap "California" with "Germany".
Looks to me like access to capital and risk aversion are the biggest problems. Always have been.
The UK is by far the best place for a startup in Europe, and I'd wager that will stay the same even after Brexit, as long as every other country has this obsession with saving cash and not investing in risky business, or any business at all.
Localization is easy, getting millions for a startup is hard. And God forbid you fail, you will very likely never get any funding from anyone in the EU and will have to move to the US. Such a waste of entrepreneurs.
Seems that language and regulations are not the barriers here.
Even US companies aren't that "unified", they're hailing from a specific state (often California) and have nothing to do with the other 49. You could easily swap "California" with "Germany".
Looks to me like access to capital and risk aversion are the biggest problems. Always have been.
The UK is by far the best place for a startup in Europe, and I'd wager that will stay the same even after Brexit, as long as every other country has this obsession with saving cash and not investing in risky business, or any business at all.
Localization is easy, getting millions for a startup is hard. And God forbid you fail, you will very likely never get any funding from anyone in the EU and will have to move to the US. Such a waste of entrepreneurs.
> huge market for itself in the EU, but a EU company can't?
Yes, because that US company was already big in the first place thanks to its foothold in the US (a single-language market). The same thing was starting to happen with AliExpress just before the pandemic but I'm not so sure how things stand right now (politics-wise, mostly).
It's pretty hard close to impossible to become a "google" or "facebook" in the local German or French markets big enough to conquer the rest of the continent. Spotify and the rest of the similar European products have had the success that they encountered precisely because they focused on an international (i.e. English-speaking) market first.
Yes, because that US company was already big in the first place thanks to its foothold in the US (a single-language market). The same thing was starting to happen with AliExpress just before the pandemic but I'm not so sure how things stand right now (politics-wise, mostly).
It's pretty hard close to impossible to become a "google" or "facebook" in the local German or French markets big enough to conquer the rest of the continent. Spotify and the rest of the similar European products have had the success that they encountered precisely because they focused on an international (i.e. English-speaking) market first.
I believe it's possible with a way bigger marketing/sales team, from all around Europe, so the product could be marketed all over Europe (and the world).
Basically, I think starting with just one language is a mistake - if you're aiming for the whole EU market, start with as many languages as you can.
Of course, that will be more expensive on a continent where funding is not easily available.
Some resellers, Wish and Joom for example, have ads in every European language, it's the same ad but with different text/voiceover. Seems to work pretty well for them.
Basically, I think starting with just one language is a mistake - if you're aiming for the whole EU market, start with as many languages as you can.
Of course, that will be more expensive on a continent where funding is not easily available.
Some resellers, Wish and Joom for example, have ads in every European language, it's the same ad but with different text/voiceover. Seems to work pretty well for them.
Seems to have worked out well enough for Blocket.se/LeBonCoin.fr and Covoiturage.fr/BlaBlaCar.com...
Not to mention Nokia... until bought by Microsoft!
"OK, bear with me here. So, a US company can create a huge market for itself in the EU, but a EU company can't?"
US companies can create massive businesses within the US. They are backed by massive VCs, national press.
Once you're 'big in the US' you can knock out many other countries like dominos - except for those that are protected, or too big, or both.
EU nations are mostly separate. The Swedish market is basically too small to be relevant for most things, to have a credible business model you have to raise money on the basis of 'EU wide' and that's a hard thing to do.
French media doesn't care one bit about Swedish startups, just the opposite, they probably prefer their own.
Ebay and Amazon bought up all their smaller competition in Europe, that same pattern is repeated.
So it's an existential problem.
US companies can create massive businesses within the US. They are backed by massive VCs, national press.
Once you're 'big in the US' you can knock out many other countries like dominos - except for those that are protected, or too big, or both.
EU nations are mostly separate. The Swedish market is basically too small to be relevant for most things, to have a credible business model you have to raise money on the basis of 'EU wide' and that's a hard thing to do.
French media doesn't care one bit about Swedish startups, just the opposite, they probably prefer their own.
Ebay and Amazon bought up all their smaller competition in Europe, that same pattern is repeated.
So it's an existential problem.
The language barrier is a relatively minor issue, in the great scheme of things. The real barriers are on practical matters on taxation and investment, like the VAT situation. While every country is allowed to have fundamentally different tax policies and regulation, there is no real level-playing field. The rules are still too loose.
We need a degree of fiscal integration at the federal level, similar to what the US have. At that point, smart people running smart companies will be free enough to deal with the cultural-border problems just fine.
We need a degree of fiscal integration at the federal level, similar to what the US have. At that point, smart people running smart companies will be free enough to deal with the cultural-border problems just fine.
Companies that have multi-lingualism built in and are a bit savy about EU-specific contexts do just fine. In fact if they do well in one country they tend to do well everywhere in the continental EU. We're all remarkably similar, despite the linguistic barriers and the remaining chauvinistic prejudices. I'm thinking about Zalando, Vinted, Idealo, ManoMano etc.
Local laws and regulation is a bigger issue I think.
Yes EU unifies a lot of things, but also leaves a lot of details up to the individual nations which means things aren't quite as similar as one might imagine.
Yes EU unifies a lot of things, but also leaves a lot of details up to the individual nations which means things aren't quite as similar as one might imagine.
The market is getting much more unified every year - the difference between now and 2000 is immense. But it's just going to take much more time still. In many areas widely discussed EU-wide regulations don't add regulatory barriers, they harmonize existing national law, thus removing barriers between EU states (though potentially increasing barriers between EU and USA) - but this harmonization requires compromises and thus time.
Soon we will see a ‘We are working on making this website accessible to our EU customers’ on the Google homepage :/
The practice you're alluding to is currently restricted to one surprisingly specific segment, which I'll term the 'hillbilly newspaper'. Seriously: I do not remember ever seeing that message, except when clicking a link to some small-town newspaper in a non-coastal US state. But among these newspapers, the rate is somewhere above 50 %.
EU visitors are obviously a small fraction of their traffic, which allows them to do this. But there are millions of other websites where that's true. And yet, none of them feel the need to implement geoblocking. I just tried Four Seasons Total Landscaping, and it works fine.
So there's something else going on. To cut to the chase, it's publishers being ideological and idiotic: they are trying to make some point about EU imperialism and US sovereignty, by pretending that the EU has powers it doesn't have.
EU visitors are obviously a small fraction of their traffic, which allows them to do this. But there are millions of other websites where that's true. And yet, none of them feel the need to implement geoblocking. I just tried Four Seasons Total Landscaping, and it works fine.
So there's something else going on. To cut to the chase, it's publishers being ideological and idiotic: they are trying to make some point about EU imperialism and US sovereignty, by pretending that the EU has powers it doesn't have.
They have a point, the eu is forcing themselves between service providers and citizens.
As a European citizen, I don't want this.
It also costs money to implement GDPR
As a European citizen, I don't want this.
It also costs money to implement GDPR
> the eu is forcing themselves between service providers and citizens
Yes, that's what regulations do, and it is for the _benefit_ of the citizens.
Yes, that's what regulations do, and it is for the _benefit_ of the citizens.
> Yes, that's what regulations do, and it is for the _benefit_ of the citizens.
Purportedly for the benefit of citizens. Whether citizens in actual fact benefit from any given regulation is specific to the given regulation and the given citizen's preferences.
Purportedly for the benefit of citizens. Whether citizens in actual fact benefit from any given regulation is specific to the given regulation and the given citizen's preferences.
The law doesn't apply to them.
The law applies to any service provided to any EU citizen, even abroad. (That's why geofencing does not make GDPR 'go away'.)
The law applies to any service targeted at EU citizens. It does not apply to services that any EU citizen happens to be using even though they're primarily intended for citizens of other countries.
A "local" Bavarian news site hosted in the US would be in scope, but a local Nebraskan news site hosted in the US wouldn't.
Edit: Recital 23: Applicable to processors not established in the Union if data subjects within the Union are targeted: https://gdpr.eu/Recital-23-Applicable-to-processors-not-esta...
In order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union.
Whereas the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention, factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.
A "local" Bavarian news site hosted in the US would be in scope, but a local Nebraskan news site hosted in the US wouldn't.
Edit: Recital 23: Applicable to processors not established in the Union if data subjects within the Union are targeted: https://gdpr.eu/Recital-23-Applicable-to-processors-not-esta...
In order to determine whether such a controller or processor is offering goods or services to data subjects who are in the Union, it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union.
Whereas the mere accessibility of the controller’s, processor’s or an intermediary’s website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention, factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.
> The law applies to any service targeted at EU citizens. It does not apply to services that any EU citizen happens to be using even though they're primarily intended for citizens of other countries.
> A "local" Bavarian news site hosted in the US would be in scope, but a local Nebraskan news site hosted in the US wouldn't.
That's a pretty optimistic interpretation of this recital. It doesn't talk about who is primarily being targeted, but the mere intent (or possibility) of "offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union". If all local EU news websites are covered because they're offering a service just by being a news website, then it follows that US sites are offering a service too. The only remaining part is to prove intent. Most of these local US sites blocking the EU are operated by big players like MNI targeted media and Chicago Tribune publishing. Even 1% of the traffic being from the EU would be a big number.
Conversely, if this would indeed exempt them from GDPR, then are all general purpose US news sites not specifically targeting the EU exempt too? Or let's go further, if I have a social media site and 99% of my users are Americans talking about US-related stuff, am I exempt too even if I let EU citizens register and participate?
> A "local" Bavarian news site hosted in the US would be in scope, but a local Nebraskan news site hosted in the US wouldn't.
That's a pretty optimistic interpretation of this recital. It doesn't talk about who is primarily being targeted, but the mere intent (or possibility) of "offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union". If all local EU news websites are covered because they're offering a service just by being a news website, then it follows that US sites are offering a service too. The only remaining part is to prove intent. Most of these local US sites blocking the EU are operated by big players like MNI targeted media and Chicago Tribune publishing. Even 1% of the traffic being from the EU would be a big number.
Conversely, if this would indeed exempt them from GDPR, then are all general purpose US news sites not specifically targeting the EU exempt too? Or let's go further, if I have a social media site and 99% of my users are Americans talking about US-related stuff, am I exempt too even if I let EU citizens register and participate?
> If all local EU news websites are covered because they're offering a service just by being a news website, then it follows that US sites are offering a service too. The only remaining part is to prove intent.
They aren't because
... the mere accessibility of the ... website in the Union ... is insufficient to ascertain such intention
Local EU websites are covered by virtue of being EU websites, not because they're accessible in the EU.
> Conversely, if this would indeed exempt them from GDPR, then are all general purpose US news sites not specifically targeting the EU exempt too?
Yes.
> if I have a social media site and 99% of my users are Americans talking about US-related stuff, am I exempt too even if I let EU citizens register and participate?
Yes, unless you're targeting EU citizens by e.g. offering interface localization in EU languages or setting growth targets for the European market in statements to your investors etc.
They aren't because
... the mere accessibility of the ... website in the Union ... is insufficient to ascertain such intention
Local EU websites are covered by virtue of being EU websites, not because they're accessible in the EU.
> Conversely, if this would indeed exempt them from GDPR, then are all general purpose US news sites not specifically targeting the EU exempt too?
Yes.
> if I have a social media site and 99% of my users are Americans talking about US-related stuff, am I exempt too even if I let EU citizens register and participate?
Yes, unless you're targeting EU citizens by e.g. offering interface localization in EU languages or setting growth targets for the European market in statements to your investors etc.
> ... the mere accessibility of the ... website in the Union ... is insufficient to ascertain such intention
> Local EU websites are covered by virtue of being EU websites, not because they're accessible in the EU.
None of this talks about nature of the content. None of this talks about how few EU users you have. It clearly talks about providing goods or services to EU citizens with some degree of intent[0]. If providing news to people isn't providing a service then any news site should be exempt regardless of content and userbase.
The "mere accessibility" part says it wouldn't be enough to prove your intention to provide goods or services to EU citizens. If you're a local bakery that only sells locally it's pretty clearly you're safe. The information on your website is not the service you're providing. And it would be very hard to argue you're somehow benefiting from or expecting EU visitors.
[0] and the "envisages offering" language is arguably an even lesser standard than the also mentioned "intention"
> Local EU websites are covered by virtue of being EU websites, not because they're accessible in the EU.
None of this talks about nature of the content. None of this talks about how few EU users you have. It clearly talks about providing goods or services to EU citizens with some degree of intent[0]. If providing news to people isn't providing a service then any news site should be exempt regardless of content and userbase.
The "mere accessibility" part says it wouldn't be enough to prove your intention to provide goods or services to EU citizens. If you're a local bakery that only sells locally it's pretty clearly you're safe. The information on your website is not the service you're providing. And it would be very hard to argue you're somehow benefiting from or expecting EU visitors.
[0] and the "envisages offering" language is arguably an even lesser standard than the also mentioned "intention"
Thank you, that is an important distinction I did not know about.
So after all geofencing is a sufficient signal to avoid falling under GDPR, unless there are other explicit ways to do business with them from the EU.
For example, if a web store blocks my IP, but I can place an order with an EU country address through a VPN, they are nonetheless obligated to process my data according to EU regulations.
Is this a correct interpretation?
So after all geofencing is a sufficient signal to avoid falling under GDPR, unless there are other explicit ways to do business with them from the EU.
For example, if a web store blocks my IP, but I can place an order with an EU country address through a VPN, they are nonetheless obligated to process my data according to EU regulations.
Is this a correct interpretation?
I have some doubts on several points. First, that sounds like a pretty clear signal that the business is pointedly not targeting EU citizens. Such a business would not be envisaging "offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union".
Second, that business probably does not operate in any meaningful way in the EU, making any obligations under GDPR a matter of legal fiction. With no kind of enforceability, any GDPR rights or obligations are meaningless.
Second, that business probably does not operate in any meaningful way in the EU, making any obligations under GDPR a matter of legal fiction. With no kind of enforceability, any GDPR rights or obligations are meaningless.
If some online store is getting payments from EU credit cards and sending goods to EU, then they obviously do offer services in EU. There are also some plausible options for enforceability (e.g. seizing all payments from EU), however, the major obstacle is that no regulator will care enough to try and enforce anything for a small scale foreign site. Their #1 enforcement priority is on EU businesses mishandling private data (e.g. loyalty programs of brick-and-mortar shops, telecommunications providers, lenders, etc), and #2 priority is the major online players that each affect millions of people. Most regulators still have a backlog on #1, they're just starting the first enforcement actions on #2, so any attempt for small foreign sites is years away at best.
GDPR is pretty cheap if treating people as merchandise isn't part of your economics.
It costs money to build protections for customer data now?
Oh I'm sure the service providers took information security very seriously as they proclaimed to. In which case, GDPR is only a legal framework they had no trouble (and serious expenses) to adhere to.
Oh I'm sure the service providers took information security very seriously as they proclaimed to. In which case, GDPR is only a legal framework they had no trouble (and serious expenses) to adhere to.
> So there's something else going on. To cut to the chase, it's publishers being ideological and idiotic: they are trying to make some point about EU imperialism and US sovereignty, by pretending that the EU has powers it doesn't have.
Could be, but another explanation is that the newspapers have heard of GDPR and don’t understand it (detailed legalese that they can skip by not serving EU citizens, I can’t really blame them), while Four Seasons Total Landscaping hasn’t even heard of it (weird foreign thing about tech — who cares? We sell spades, not computers!)
Could be, but another explanation is that the newspapers have heard of GDPR and don’t understand it (detailed legalese that they can skip by not serving EU citizens, I can’t really blame them), while Four Seasons Total Landscaping hasn’t even heard of it (weird foreign thing about tech — who cares? We sell spades, not computers!)
If the requirement to be powerful but not almighty proves to be too much for Google I'll be glad to see them go.
I do not expect that to happen.
I do not expect that to happen.
That would be a dream come true for European tech companies. Imagine the race to fill the gap of Google.com. EU may not be the US when it comes to software but there are many smart people here that would have a huge motivation.
> Imagine the race to fill the gap of Google.com.
I just imagine billions of dollars burnt to no avail.
I just imagine billions of dollars burnt to no avail.
Yeah that's not happening.
Fine.
It's very unlikely though -- google bends over backwards to do business in China.
It's very unlikely though -- google bends over backwards to do business in China.
[deleted]
I have a naive question: In this regulated market, where is the line drawn in relation to which companies one entity can acquire? It seems that IG wanted to sell to FaceBook and the government blessed it, same with Google's acquisitions but I do not know much about the process of purchasing a company.
Also what does the HN community think will happen to the "Get big fast then exit" strategy if these conglomerates get busted up? Will that SV investor scene die or change? I'm already seeing the rise of bootstrappers and the term lifestyle business no longer being a "lesser-than" moniker.
Just what's on my mind this morning, would love good discussion.
Also what does the HN community think will happen to the "Get big fast then exit" strategy if these conglomerates get busted up? Will that SV investor scene die or change? I'm already seeing the rise of bootstrappers and the term lifestyle business no longer being a "lesser-than" moniker.
Just what's on my mind this morning, would love good discussion.
Instead of big companies buying smaller ones, big ones would just clone them (either integrating them into their existing product or creating a new product) and beat them.
If this gets through and implemented, it's probably gonna affect Google a lot, but I wonder whether they'll also go after Apple with their App Store and the whole Spotify situation, since I don't think I've seen the EU regulators look into that before.
EU is already going after apple.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
What are you referring to by "Spotify situation"? I'm out of the loop. Could it be the data breaches mentioned here?
https://threatpost.com/spotify-changes-passwords-data-breach...
https://threatpost.com/spotify-changes-passwords-data-breach...
Spotify complained that apples uses its market power as the app-gatekeeper to promote its own services over Spotify's. Afaik, Spotify needs to pay that 30% royalty fee to apple whenever someone signs up to Spotify via the app-store, whereas apple obviously does not have pay itself that fee for its music streaming service.
This is the complaint: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
Spotify has illustrated that they have no qualms themselves in abusing their market power to subvert the fairness/freeness of markets - they're currently pouring massive amounts of resources into an attempt to force themselves into the role of podcasting-gatekeeper. Hope that the EU looks into their own actions as well.
The "Spotify situation" is an ongoing argument between Spotify & Apple.
Spotify's side: https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/ (this page is theirs)
Apple's side: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-c...
Spotify's side: https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/ (this page is theirs)
Apple's side: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-c...
I doubt Ireland(EU HQ of most FANNGs) will not veto this.
No single EU member state can veto this.
To pass the Council a Regulation like this only requires a Qualified Majority,[0] that's votes in favour from at least 14 countries representing at least 65% of the EU's population.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
To pass the Council a Regulation like this only requires a Qualified Majority,[0] that's votes in favour from at least 14 countries representing at least 65% of the EU's population.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
[deleted]
> Companies with over 45 million EU users would be designated as digital "gatekeepers" — making them subject to stricter regulations.
Do "shadow profiles" of people who never registered but have data collected on them count towards this?
Do "shadow profiles" of people who never registered but have data collected on them count towards this?
This is fantastic. These companies need the EU as badly as the EU needs them, and its about time there was a flex from the other side.
This one actually sounds useful for european tech, if applied correctly, and might even benefit tech overall.
"curbing the power of tech giants" sounds harmless doesn't it? but when the end-game is to also break encryption:
"> Europe adopts resolution on security through and “security despite” despite encryption" see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25429373
it becomes a lot different and realistic goal to achieve. "think DRM!" too. Lawful Interception on "legal comms channels" are then the norm, and e2ee (because it breaks LI) is illegal.
"> Europe adopts resolution on security through and “security despite” despite encryption" see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25429373
it becomes a lot different and realistic goal to achieve. "think DRM!" too. Lawful Interception on "legal comms channels" are then the norm, and e2ee (because it breaks LI) is illegal.
In short, people don't like a deal, and rather than walking away (which they are free to do), they want a well-armed third party to alter the deal.
I see a lot of critiques about "bundling", but the fact is every deal is a package deal. Force Apple to allow installing a non-Safari browser; you're still running iOS, you're still using Broadcom chips, you're still indirectly supporting the CCP, etc. But good for Apple because these token changes keep people from leaving their product altogether.
The sad irony is that these actions will further entrench established firms by diminishing/obviating competitive advantages of would-be competitors, and/or yield worse outcomes for consumers. This has been the case throughout the entire history of "anti-trust" law.
Aside: Competing is not "anti-competitive". A "competitive market" is not determined by counting extant competitors, but by whether or not would-be competitors are interfered with by third-parties.
I see a lot of critiques about "bundling", but the fact is every deal is a package deal. Force Apple to allow installing a non-Safari browser; you're still running iOS, you're still using Broadcom chips, you're still indirectly supporting the CCP, etc. But good for Apple because these token changes keep people from leaving their product altogether.
The sad irony is that these actions will further entrench established firms by diminishing/obviating competitive advantages of would-be competitors, and/or yield worse outcomes for consumers. This has been the case throughout the entire history of "anti-trust" law.
Aside: Competing is not "anti-competitive". A "competitive market" is not determined by counting extant competitors, but by whether or not would-be competitors are interfered with by third-parties.
Does this help big tech or hurt big tech? One way to create a monopoly is to regulate competition out of existence. Lawsuits against big tech are becoming the latest form of semantic satiation.
TFA mentions that «Large tech firms would be designated as internet "gatekeepers" — making them subject to stricter regulations.»
So the regulation is not horizontal. And it is positive that the EU seem to have learnt a few things from the application of GDPR.
Only INTEROPERABILITY will scare them.
How convenient. Just as the UK leaves a big gap in their budget, they've just realised that all these mega wealthy companies are actually breaking a bunch of EU laws they've just thought up, and will have to pay the EU lots of money, it's the only way to redress the harm of course.
As an EU citizen, I'm extremely happy for the way the EU is pushing back on the tech giants. It's empowering.
The GDPR, in my opinion, turned out to be a terrific first step (which does not mean it does not have its issues). It's been a rocky two+ years, but most sites are already up to a point where they actually give me a way to express my consent, or (more importantly) to object to processing on grounds of legitimate interest (which is where advertisers come in).
And that's just one example. The GDPR starts with the following sentence (in recital 1): The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. And the EU is living up to it.
It's empowering to actually have a say in how one's own data is being processed, rather than just being the product at someone else's mercy.
I can only welcome any further steps in this direction. I have no issues with some entity getting rich and powerful, the problem is when they get too powerful.
The GDPR, in my opinion, turned out to be a terrific first step (which does not mean it does not have its issues). It's been a rocky two+ years, but most sites are already up to a point where they actually give me a way to express my consent, or (more importantly) to object to processing on grounds of legitimate interest (which is where advertisers come in).
And that's just one example. The GDPR starts with the following sentence (in recital 1): The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. And the EU is living up to it.
It's empowering to actually have a say in how one's own data is being processed, rather than just being the product at someone else's mercy.
I can only welcome any further steps in this direction. I have no issues with some entity getting rich and powerful, the problem is when they get too powerful.
As a European citizen, I'm tired of having to close hundreds of popups a day which purposefully use dark patterns to make it harder to unselect everything and just close and make it easy to accept everything in one click.
This is what happens when you get incompetent non technical people to regulate on things.
Most people still just accept everything and we get terrible, government mandated ui.
Oh and let's not forget all the foreign websites I can't access anymore because they're not compliant and required to block traffic from EU.
Why can't I read anymore local USA newspapers? Is this freedom?
It's the EU that it's getting too powerful (unless we look at the economy)
This is what happens when you get incompetent non technical people to regulate on things.
Most people still just accept everything and we get terrible, government mandated ui.
Oh and let's not forget all the foreign websites I can't access anymore because they're not compliant and required to block traffic from EU.
Why can't I read anymore local USA newspapers? Is this freedom?
It's the EU that it's getting too powerful (unless we look at the economy)
> I'm tired of having to...
Weird, I manually opt out of everything on most websites I visit and I find it pretty straightforward. There's only a handful of flows that most websites use, so it's not that difficult. There are some egregious exceptions (Yahoo being a particularly annoying one), but that's a small number of cases and, in most cases, it makes me realise I didn't actually care that much about reading their content, so I just move on.
Also, the dark patterns are not a result of the law, but a result of insufficient law enforcement. If the EU comissions starts going after a few websites that employ particularly dark patterns for consent, you'll see everyone fall in line.
> Is this freedom?
Yup, it's that website's freedom to block EU traffic.
Weird, I manually opt out of everything on most websites I visit and I find it pretty straightforward. There's only a handful of flows that most websites use, so it's not that difficult. There are some egregious exceptions (Yahoo being a particularly annoying one), but that's a small number of cases and, in most cases, it makes me realise I didn't actually care that much about reading their content, so I just move on.
Also, the dark patterns are not a result of the law, but a result of insufficient law enforcement. If the EU comissions starts going after a few websites that employ particularly dark patterns for consent, you'll see everyone fall in line.
> Is this freedom?
Yup, it's that website's freedom to block EU traffic.
> it's that website's freedom to block EU traffic.
But the point is that a bunch of people don't want to be blocked from using that website, and it is because of the problems with the GDPR.
The OP was talking about "their" freedom to access that website. GDPR claims to support his freedom, but all it has done is resulting in him being unable to access local american news websites.
Which does not seem like it helps his freedom much at all.
But the point is that a bunch of people don't want to be blocked from using that website, and it is because of the problems with the GDPR.
The OP was talking about "their" freedom to access that website. GDPR claims to support his freedom, but all it has done is resulting in him being unable to access local american news websites.
Which does not seem like it helps his freedom much at all.
You know they are tricking you?
The websites make it annoying as possible so you think it's the EUs fault.
How about just stop the tracking and give me an option to turn it on if I want?
It's the newspaper's choice to exclude you. Nothing in the law requires it. Proof: the website you're currently using. The New York Times. Really anything except the Backwater End Times and The Suburbian Dystopia Monthly
As you well know, using 'Backwater End Times and The Suburbian Dystopia Monthly' as examples is disingenuous. Mildly amusing but deliberately misses the point. For the newspaper it's the law of diminishing returns as regards far-flung readers.
> It's the newspaper's choice to exclude you. Nothing in the law requires it.
The EU makes a law, and suddenly a bunch of newspapers choose to exclude europeans.
> Really anything except the Backwater End Times and The Suburbian Dystopia Monthly
Sour grapes thinking. If that were really the case people wouldn't notice it at all. You click on a link because it interests you, then see that as a european you can't access it and then tell yourself that it didn't actually interest you.
The EU makes a law, and suddenly a bunch of newspapers choose to exclude europeans.
> Really anything except the Backwater End Times and The Suburbian Dystopia Monthly
Sour grapes thinking. If that were really the case people wouldn't notice it at all. You click on a link because it interests you, then see that as a european you can't access it and then tell yourself that it didn't actually interest you.
>As a European citizen, I'm tired of having to close hundreds of popups a day which purposefully use dark patterns to make it harder to unselect everything and just close and make it easy to accept everything in one click.
There's a terrific browser extension called Consent Manager [1] that automatizes it.
[1] https://github.com/privacycloud/consent-manager-web-ext
As for freedom, well, you're free to just consent and get your identity traded and become a digital slave.
By and large the law works just as it was meant to : showing in broad daylight the extent of what the data market has become.
There's a terrific browser extension called Consent Manager [1] that automatizes it.
[1] https://github.com/privacycloud/consent-manager-web-ext
As for freedom, well, you're free to just consent and get your identity traded and become a digital slave.
By and large the law works just as it was meant to : showing in broad daylight the extent of what the data market has become.
I'm going to take this comment at face value even though the username is "jokethrowaway".
Yes. It is freedom. I'll take a few popups over the worst excesses of big tech privacy invasion, rent-seeking and monopolistic practices.
Yes. It is freedom. I'll take a few popups over the worst excesses of big tech privacy invasion, rent-seeking and monopolistic practices.
I click "reject all" (+dark pattern "object" to "legitimate interest").
If a site wants me to do that all individually, I close the window. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Oh, and I probably should report them, because it's almost certainly illegal.
And yes, this is freedom. The freedom for me to choose. I can still click "accept all" if I want to. I couldn't before, and I didn't even know how much there was.
What you meant is "convenience". Freedom is not always convenient.
If a site wants me to do that all individually, I close the window. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Oh, and I probably should report them, because it's almost certainly illegal.
And yes, this is freedom. The freedom for me to choose. I can still click "accept all" if I want to. I couldn't before, and I didn't even know how much there was.
What you meant is "convenience". Freedom is not always convenient.
> As a European citizen, I'm tired of having to close hundreds of popups a day which purposefully use dark patterns to make it harder to unselect everything and just close and make it easy to accept everything in one click.
Well, this is exactly the thing that's illegal under GDPR. Don't blame the regulator if websites are blatantly not complying with the law.
Well, this is exactly the thing that's illegal under GDPR. Don't blame the regulator if websites are blatantly not complying with the law.
Yeah, and it seems to me that it slowly has been getting better (as websites keep being fined?), so looks like the law is working? (I would have preferred this to be handled in the browser itself though...)
> As a European citizen, I'm tired of having to close hundreds of popups a day which purposefully use dark patterns to make it harder to unselect everything and just close and make it easy to accept everything in one click.
The popups is the tiny, visible part of the GDPR. The rest of the iceberg that is the GDPR is that those sites already had to think about how they handle your data.
I hope the popups thing will be resolved by clarification and some stiff example-making fines. Hopefully those examples make it clear that no kind of "optional" tracking can be included via a prominent "Accept and continue" button and that all such default actions must lead to zero tracking/third party ad cookies being used. Once sites realize that almost no one will make an effort and actively enable tracking, these things will disapppear (as will a lot of the sites that can't find alternative revenue - this is a good thing)
The popups is the tiny, visible part of the GDPR. The rest of the iceberg that is the GDPR is that those sites already had to think about how they handle your data.
I hope the popups thing will be resolved by clarification and some stiff example-making fines. Hopefully those examples make it clear that no kind of "optional" tracking can be included via a prominent "Accept and continue" button and that all such default actions must lead to zero tracking/third party ad cookies being used. Once sites realize that almost no one will make an effort and actively enable tracking, these things will disapppear (as will a lot of the sites that can't find alternative revenue - this is a good thing)
> This is what happens when you get incompetent non technical people to regulate on things.
I think GDPR, and the so-called "cookie law" before it, was done pretty competently. The principles are pretty clear: data policies/controllers/etc. have to be explicit and limited; personal data collection requires consent of the people involved; opting into a service implies consent for data required by that service (e.g. cookies for shopping carts, local storage for highscores, etc.); if consent isn't implied, it must be requested explicitly.
Explicit consent is a last resort, and only required when collecting personal data which (a) isn't directly required to provide a service or (b) comes from people who aren't users of your service (i.e. who haven't opted in). Advertising is a good example, since the "users" of an ad network (those opting to use it) are the people buying and selling ad space; people viewing those ads aren't users (they haven't opted in); and advertising isn't required to provide a service (e.g. a news site; it might be indirectly required, for raising revenue, but the site would work just the same with any revenue source).
The fact you're tired of popups shows that GDPR is working; the extent of data collection, surveillance, etc. has been brought to the surface. Your anger is misdirected though: it's not GDPR's fault that so many surveillance organisations are trying to track and target you; quite the opposite!
> make it easy to accept everything in one click
> Is this freedom?
Do you think it would be "freedom" to waive all of your waivable rights, to anyone and everyone who asks, without even knowing they asked? That's what an automated banner-clicker would be doing, since consent popups are not restricted to talking about cookies (just like GDPR isn't about cookies); they can ask for pretty much anything. In fact, I imagine many of them ask for more than they're legally allowed (this happens all the time, e.g. many privacy policies do this, many "warranty void if removed" stickers are not legally enforcable, etc.).
If you'd instead rather tell your browser to accept certain pre-selected terms which you're comfortable with, then you're in luck! There's a standard for that called P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P It's not supported by Chrome, but you can enable it in Firefox, as long as you're using version 2 (it was removed in Firefox 3). Then you just need to convince every Web site you visit to implement it. Good luck!
I think GDPR, and the so-called "cookie law" before it, was done pretty competently. The principles are pretty clear: data policies/controllers/etc. have to be explicit and limited; personal data collection requires consent of the people involved; opting into a service implies consent for data required by that service (e.g. cookies for shopping carts, local storage for highscores, etc.); if consent isn't implied, it must be requested explicitly.
Explicit consent is a last resort, and only required when collecting personal data which (a) isn't directly required to provide a service or (b) comes from people who aren't users of your service (i.e. who haven't opted in). Advertising is a good example, since the "users" of an ad network (those opting to use it) are the people buying and selling ad space; people viewing those ads aren't users (they haven't opted in); and advertising isn't required to provide a service (e.g. a news site; it might be indirectly required, for raising revenue, but the site would work just the same with any revenue source).
The fact you're tired of popups shows that GDPR is working; the extent of data collection, surveillance, etc. has been brought to the surface. Your anger is misdirected though: it's not GDPR's fault that so many surveillance organisations are trying to track and target you; quite the opposite!
> make it easy to accept everything in one click
> Is this freedom?
Do you think it would be "freedom" to waive all of your waivable rights, to anyone and everyone who asks, without even knowing they asked? That's what an automated banner-clicker would be doing, since consent popups are not restricted to talking about cookies (just like GDPR isn't about cookies); they can ask for pretty much anything. In fact, I imagine many of them ask for more than they're legally allowed (this happens all the time, e.g. many privacy policies do this, many "warranty void if removed" stickers are not legally enforcable, etc.).
If you'd instead rather tell your browser to accept certain pre-selected terms which you're comfortable with, then you're in luck! There's a standard for that called P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P It's not supported by Chrome, but you can enable it in Firefox, as long as you're using version 2 (it was removed in Firefox 3). Then you just need to convince every Web site you visit to implement it. Good luck!
> it's not GDPR's fault
It absolutely is the fault of GDPR that now a bunch of websites in the US are blocking him.
There was a new law, and now a bunch of newspapers responded to that law. As predicted.
It was entirely predicted that this was going to be the result of GDPR. It should be obvious that some companies would simply block people from the EU, and those people could be worse off for being blocked.
> The fact you're tired of popups shows that GDPR is working
But the person does not want those popups. They simply don't care that much about data tracking. And instead, they are more annoyed by the popups. This is a negative consequence that you have to recognize.
> Do you think it would be "freedom" to waive all of your waivable rights
Well here is a better solution. The people who want the popups to show up, all the time, with the horrible UI, could have that. But what if, for everyone else, we had a single click button that said "ignore all this GDPR stuff, and go back to how it was before".
That way, people for prefer the frequent popups can have them, and the people who don't want that, can just agree to all of it, at once, and not have to worry about it anymore, if we choose do so.
That would be a choice, right? Thats freedom.
It absolutely is the fault of GDPR that now a bunch of websites in the US are blocking him.
There was a new law, and now a bunch of newspapers responded to that law. As predicted.
It was entirely predicted that this was going to be the result of GDPR. It should be obvious that some companies would simply block people from the EU, and those people could be worse off for being blocked.
> The fact you're tired of popups shows that GDPR is working
But the person does not want those popups. They simply don't care that much about data tracking. And instead, they are more annoyed by the popups. This is a negative consequence that you have to recognize.
> Do you think it would be "freedom" to waive all of your waivable rights
Well here is a better solution. The people who want the popups to show up, all the time, with the horrible UI, could have that. But what if, for everyone else, we had a single click button that said "ignore all this GDPR stuff, and go back to how it was before".
That way, people for prefer the frequent popups can have them, and the people who don't want that, can just agree to all of it, at once, and not have to worry about it anymore, if we choose do so.
That would be a choice, right? Thats freedom.
This comment always comes up and the answer is always the same.
The dark patterns are straight up non-compliant with the law. The GDPR mandates about 0 of those popups, it's the shitty companies that "comply" because they want to abuse your data that make those popups.
Same with the foreign newspapers, they're _not_ required to block anything. They just chose to because it's somehow easier to block traffic than to not track them.
The dark patterns are straight up non-compliant with the law. The GDPR mandates about 0 of those popups, it's the shitty companies that "comply" because they want to abuse your data that make those popups.
Same with the foreign newspapers, they're _not_ required to block anything. They just chose to because it's somehow easier to block traffic than to not track them.
>As an EU citizen, I'm extremely happy for the way the EU is pushing back on the tech giants. It's empowering.
Let's not kid ourselves, the main reason EU is pushing against them so easily is that they're not European so they have nothing to lose.
See how little resistance from the EU, VW and other EU major car manufacturers faced with emission cheating/scandals and the amount of lobbying they do.
If Google and Facebook would be locally home grown and provide tens of thousands of well paid jobs and billions in tax revenue to the EU economy, not to mention provide the EU with a global (surveillance)hegemony on tech, it would be safe to assume the EU would let many of the current things slide.
Let's not kid ourselves, the main reason EU is pushing against them so easily is that they're not European so they have nothing to lose.
See how little resistance from the EU, VW and other EU major car manufacturers faced with emission cheating/scandals and the amount of lobbying they do.
If Google and Facebook would be locally home grown and provide tens of thousands of well paid jobs and billions in tax revenue to the EU economy, not to mention provide the EU with a global (surveillance)hegemony on tech, it would be safe to assume the EU would let many of the current things slide.
> See how little resistance from the EU, VW and other EU major car manufacturers face with emissions.
The EU consistently puts down very strict regulations regarding emissions and with the new 2021 laws it's predicted VW alone will have to pay 4.5 billion euro fines to the EU for not reaching the emission targets. It's one of the reasons they started selling the ID.3 when it was only half-finished.
The EU consistently puts down very strict regulations regarding emissions and with the new 2021 laws it's predicted VW alone will have to pay 4.5 billion euro fines to the EU for not reaching the emission targets. It's one of the reasons they started selling the ID.3 when it was only half-finished.
> If Google and Facebook would be locally home grown [...] it would be safe to assume the EU would let many of the current things slide.
These laws are not designed to hit only Google and Facebook they are hitting tech in general, including local companies. If the EU were to have any locally home grown tech companies to speak of, it would be safe to assume the EU would let many of the current things slide.
I can only assume the EU gave up completely on its own businesses to ever be able to compete with any US tech company. These regulations upon regulations increasing the bar of entry continuously practically guarantee that there won't ever be a competitor to any US tech company coming out of the EU.
These laws are not designed to hit only Google and Facebook they are hitting tech in general, including local companies. If the EU were to have any locally home grown tech companies to speak of, it would be safe to assume the EU would let many of the current things slide.
I can only assume the EU gave up completely on its own businesses to ever be able to compete with any US tech company. These regulations upon regulations increasing the bar of entry continuously practically guarantee that there won't ever be a competitor to any US tech company coming out of the EU.
That doesn't counter what the OP said.
The EU can empower citizens with anti tech corporate action while also dropping the ball whean dealing with European car manufacturers. It's not either/or.
The EU can empower citizens with anti tech corporate action while also dropping the ball whean dealing with European car manufacturers. It's not either/or.
The most GDPR fines are still on European companies fyi:
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
It will cost < 1000 € to go after a big tech company that doesn't respect GDPR ( Cfr. If you start it in the Netherlands)
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
It will cost < 1000 € to go after a big tech company that doesn't respect GDPR ( Cfr. If you start it in the Netherlands)
> Let's not kid ourselves, the main reason EU is pushing against them so easily is that they're not European so they have nothing to lose.
Data protection in the EU goes back to before Facebook was even founded. Google was still a small startup. The GDPR was just the next iteration of it.
In any case, even if that were the case, then recognizing the right to one's own data as a fundamental right would just be an empty pretext.
> See how little resistance from the EU, VW and other EU major car manufacturers faced with emission cheating/scandals and the amount of lobbying they do.
It's possible for someone to do well in one area, and to perform badly in another.
As a counterpoint, the GDPR has been enforced just as strongly against European banks, for example.
Edit: here you go, the first EU incarnation that recognizes the rights of individual to their data, published in October 1995 (when none of these tech giants even existed):
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...
Data protection in the EU goes back to before Facebook was even founded. Google was still a small startup. The GDPR was just the next iteration of it.
In any case, even if that were the case, then recognizing the right to one's own data as a fundamental right would just be an empty pretext.
> See how little resistance from the EU, VW and other EU major car manufacturers faced with emission cheating/scandals and the amount of lobbying they do.
It's possible for someone to do well in one area, and to perform badly in another.
As a counterpoint, the GDPR has been enforced just as strongly against European banks, for example.
Edit: here you go, the first EU incarnation that recognizes the rights of individual to their data, published in October 1995 (when none of these tech giants even existed):
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...
I like the fact that corporations (invented bodies) are starting to have limitations placed on them and maybe they can't argue their way out.
This isn't because I dislike capitalism or business - they really enrich everyone -- it's just that checks and balances are always better for everyone.
This isn't because I dislike capitalism or business - they really enrich everyone -- it's just that checks and balances are always better for everyone.
I still think GDPR should have regulated the DNT header. Scoped, what it means to say "non-functional" cookies, or whatever they're called in the popups. Then we could have had just one switch in the browser.
GDPR was a major shot in their own foot. This new one seems to be the right direction though
As we see more and more companies leave the EU under increased regulation I wonder what kind of potential will exist in the void. GDPR for instance caused a lot of smaller players to peace out entirely. The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese comes to mind.
This very much needed to be implemented worldwide. We have not seen capitalism to have been exploited to such extent, so we need regulation to limit any anomalies. I would go further and require that at a certain scale companies should be divided into smaller ones.
Why do you think small companies can't compete with big companies anymore?
This is the opposite of capitalism, this is big companies colluding with the government to keep their dominant position and prevent competition. For example, look at how VATMOSS forced sellers to use Amazon / eBay or implement complicated tracking / accounting.
This is the opposite of capitalism, this is big companies colluding with the government to keep their dominant position and prevent competition. For example, look at how VATMOSS forced sellers to use Amazon / eBay or implement complicated tracking / accounting.
VATMOSS is a simplification compared to what they'd have to do before tho, no? Depending on where they were doing business i guess but on average.
Additionally you can basically follow only your local countries vat rules up to 10k
VAT itself was the original "over-complication", so I wouldn't call it a fair comparison. In all cases, it's easy for big companies to follow VAT regulations, but less so for smaller ones.
> Additionally you can basically follow only your local countries vat rules up to 10k
I don’t think that was originally the case, I think that’s something campaigners managed to get later.
I think VATMOSS happened because big companies chose to operate from whichever EU country had the lowest VAT rate, and charged all sales at that VAT rate, which would explain why it happened. But I’m not a lawyer and I wasn’t doing B2C self employment at the time of the change, so don’t take my word for it.
I don’t think that was originally the case, I think that’s something campaigners managed to get later.
I think VATMOSS happened because big companies chose to operate from whichever EU country had the lowest VAT rate, and charged all sales at that VAT rate, which would explain why it happened. But I’m not a lawyer and I wasn’t doing B2C self employment at the time of the change, so don’t take my word for it.
There were good reasons to make some changes but €10K isn't very high. My small one person business does that much in several EU countries and I know I'm far from alone in that.
It's not 'any more', the whole body of law on monopolies and mergers is like a 200 years old cornerstone of markets.
It would be more effective to just regulate the maximum % commission that these platforms are allowed to charge. Set it at 5% for developers located in the EU, and be done with regulation forever.
But - this method doesn't allow for over-regulation, over-government, and megafines. The benefits go to small and medium-sized European businesses, instead of the European bureaucrat class, so its a no-go.
But - this method doesn't allow for over-regulation, over-government, and megafines. The benefits go to small and medium-sized European businesses, instead of the European bureaucrat class, so its a no-go.
Oh no, just stop doing this EU!
More "accept all cookies" buttons on every web site.
Yay.
[edit]: looks like the brits jumped ship just in time.
Yay.
[edit]: looks like the brits jumped ship just in time.
One more law from EU that won't accomplish anything.
We should be grateful it doesn't look like they're screwing up small businesses (VATMESS) or the entire internet (cookie law, GDPR, copyright link tax) this time
We should be grateful it doesn't look like they're screwing up small businesses (VATMESS) or the entire internet (cookie law, GDPR, copyright link tax) this time
You think GDPR didn't accomplish anything? Companies around the world had to implement it to be able to do business with the EU, as one of the largest trading blocks by GDP.
That means anyone storing any kind of consumer data had to consider a) how to report on what they were storing if asked and b) how to delete data if asked. Banks and others spent massive amounts of cash on implementing GDPR. It was a major breakthrough in getting corporations to take privacy seriously.
Has it solved surveillance capitalism? No. And for most of us dumb consumers we're just "ugggh.... annoying modals about privacy on every website".
But it's the first step towards having some kind of protection for consumers and it shows, despite lobbyists or otherwise, governments can have a real impact. And now the EU is building on that success.
That means anyone storing any kind of consumer data had to consider a) how to report on what they were storing if asked and b) how to delete data if asked. Banks and others spent massive amounts of cash on implementing GDPR. It was a major breakthrough in getting corporations to take privacy seriously.
Has it solved surveillance capitalism? No. And for most of us dumb consumers we're just "ugggh.... annoying modals about privacy on every website".
But it's the first step towards having some kind of protection for consumers and it shows, despite lobbyists or otherwise, governments can have a real impact. And now the EU is building on that success.
As a customer, I don't want / care about protection and I will never trust an online platform, regardless of what your bureaucrats are promising to do.
As a small business, that is just an extra pile of regulations and pain I need to deal with that previous competitors didn't have.
As a small business, that is just an extra pile of regulations and pain I need to deal with that previous competitors didn't have.
Let's look at the arguments from the other side:
If you don't use all those online platforms, do you need to complain about their dark patterns? They don't affect you then.
As a customer of your small business, will you trust your online small business? If yes, why? I would think, exactly because those regulations force the online small business to comply. If not, maybe because said online small business is not trustworthy...
Oh, it' accomplished something. It entirely ruined WHOIS so that you can no longer just pull up domain contact information. Another knife into the back of email. Now it's basically $socialnetwork or nothing. And it hasn't stopped any of the things it was meant to. It's just disconnected much of Europe's userbase from the rest of the world like China and Russia.
And give it another 10 years and the same GDPR regulations will have entirely established and cemented the tech giants (the only ones with the army of lawyers on retainer) as the only players possible.
And give it another 10 years and the same GDPR regulations will have entirely established and cemented the tech giants (the only ones with the army of lawyers on retainer) as the only players possible.
WHOIS privacy has existed for a long time, your argument is moot.
Domains with WHOIS privacy services holding the domain for them still had email addresses before. Most whois privacy services provided forwarding to the actual owner. This is no longer true. Your counter-argument is moot.
>Oh, it' accomplished something. It entirely ruined WHOIS so that you can no longer just pull up domain contact information.
That was ICANN's decision. They implemented a scorched-earth policy in response to the GDPR rather than, say, showing corporate ownership information and hiding personal ownership information.
It was petty, and, I imagine, would not have happened if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
That was ICANN's decision. They implemented a scorched-earth policy in response to the GDPR rather than, say, showing corporate ownership information and hiding personal ownership information.
It was petty, and, I imagine, would not have happened if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
> "ugggh.... annoying modals about privacy on every website"
and most of them use dark patterns to not let us disable analytics.
There are websites with hundreds of "partners" that you have to disable one by one if you don't want to get their cookies.
For once the EU is fighting the good fight, but they have no teeth. Look at the quagmire that is Google privacy options list.
and most of them use dark patterns to not let us disable analytics.
There are websites with hundreds of "partners" that you have to disable one by one if you don't want to get their cookies.
For once the EU is fighting the good fight, but they have no teeth. Look at the quagmire that is Google privacy options list.
These dark patterns are explicitly non-compliant under GDPR.
There are already precedents of large fines for similar bullshit.
It just takes a very long time, but when doing business in the EU, following the letter of these regulations won't be enough.
There are already precedents of large fines for similar bullshit.
It just takes a very long time, but when doing business in the EU, following the letter of these regulations won't be enough.
GDPR has largely been a bureaucratic exercise and came down to train people to mindlessly click agree on the pop ups. Meanwhile giants that routinely violate privacy continue untouched. GDPR also doesn't seem to have provisions against retaliation. If you use important service that violates privacy you are likely to get your account deleted if you keep complaining.
I agree that some laws miss their effect. Especially the cookie law turned out horrible. But I do consulting in multiple big enterprises in EU countries, and since GDPR each of them is very careful when dealing with user data and what data they collect. I didn't expect this big of an effect when GDPR got introduced.
stavros(2)
I would be skeptical about this, the EU is great at speaking loudly with a tiny stick
The EU is only good at hindering progress these days. The tech market here is extremely dry with only ARM and DeepMind being the only non-gaming tech companies that come to mind that are actually relevant, with DeepMind needing the backing outside of the EU to be where it's at today and ARM being bought by NVIDIA.
The way you improve the tech scene is by providing better alternatives. Music piracy was reduced through services like Spotify rather than some business/political people getting sites 'removed'. Elon Musk creates OpenAI with the goal of building safe AGI, the JS creator created Brave for privacy. Good luck trying to start any of these projects here.
Laws that try to moderate only create a chase that goes in circles. They are not a solution.
The way you improve the tech scene is by providing better alternatives. Music piracy was reduced through services like Spotify rather than some business/political people getting sites 'removed'. Elon Musk creates OpenAI with the goal of building safe AGI, the JS creator created Brave for privacy. Good luck trying to start any of these projects here.
Laws that try to moderate only create a chase that goes in circles. They are not a solution.
1. Alphabet/Google
2. Apple
3. Facebook
4. Match Group
Match group is lucky they're not getting much attention, but they own all major dating apps. They need a bit of smacking.
Reasons:
For Google, the biggest problem is their bundling of Chrome, YouTube, Gmail if you want to have Google certified android phone that has the Google play store. Google should be prevented from having their own WWW crawler too. The crawler should be made into it's own company and data should be purchased by Google and any other company that want to purchase it at the same costs.
For Apple, it's their app store. The app store needs to be eliminated. Apple has a problem with not allowing competing browser engines on iOS and misleading people by saying it's for privacy reason. Eliminating the control of the App store from Apple is going to fix the problem.
For Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp should be spun off to their own entities.
For Match group, break off tinder into a separate company. And prevent any future dating app accusations by Match group or Tinder. NO MERGERS.
---
From the Chinese side:
I'd like to see Alibaba group and Tencent being investigated.
-----------
Edit: replying to calls below for travel industry.
The travel industry is already competitive enough, and the situation in these areas should be reviewed after a year or two.
For now, these are the critical problems for tech. Their control is taking the breath away from smaller companies and reducing innovation.