Ask HN: Is there an anti-EU sentiment from big tech?
41 comments
So I take it your question is: Is Anti-EU sentiment justified or unjustified?
I think that it's both wholly justified and almost entirely grassroots/bottom-up. A thriving tech/industrial ecosystem -- even a functional military-industrial ecosystem -- is basically incompatible with Europe's regulatory and taxation structures.
Much has been written recently about how Norway and Italy tax unrealized gains to such an extent that running a SV-style startup is basically illegal. See, e.g.: https://x.com/aledeniz/status/1842872753499607407
Labor regulations result in very high costs of failure, so that what would be profitable in California would be unprofitable in Germany: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/12/wh...
As Boss Zvi put it, "Welcome to being a CEO in the EU with over 40m in revenue, now please report these 649 environmental and social indicators." https://x.com/jo3hill/status/1866450203743576478
And I could go on all day. Depending on the business you're in, it can be smart to incorporate in the Caiman Islands and work out of Europe on a satellite office basis, but you definitely want to limit your exposure to EU rules.
I'd only note that the EU is not a monolith, local regulations and tax laws can differ wildly, and some countries -- like Ireland and certain Baltic companies chasing investment -- are much more business friendly than others. (With Italy, Germany, and Norway in the "you'd have to be a masochist to start a business here" tier.)
I think that it's both wholly justified and almost entirely grassroots/bottom-up. A thriving tech/industrial ecosystem -- even a functional military-industrial ecosystem -- is basically incompatible with Europe's regulatory and taxation structures.
Much has been written recently about how Norway and Italy tax unrealized gains to such an extent that running a SV-style startup is basically illegal. See, e.g.: https://x.com/aledeniz/status/1842872753499607407
Labor regulations result in very high costs of failure, so that what would be profitable in California would be unprofitable in Germany: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/12/wh...
As Boss Zvi put it, "Welcome to being a CEO in the EU with over 40m in revenue, now please report these 649 environmental and social indicators." https://x.com/jo3hill/status/1866450203743576478
And I could go on all day. Depending on the business you're in, it can be smart to incorporate in the Caiman Islands and work out of Europe on a satellite office basis, but you definitely want to limit your exposure to EU rules.
I'd only note that the EU is not a monolith, local regulations and tax laws can differ wildly, and some countries -- like Ireland and certain Baltic companies chasing investment -- are much more business friendly than others. (With Italy, Germany, and Norway in the "you'd have to be a masochist to start a business here" tier.)
> almost entirely grassroots/bottom-up
Exactly.
I feel it's simply put:
Europe is just further on the left of the `labour - capital` divide. As a region with insane inherited capital (all the old money), this makes perfect sense.
A lot of US media laments the corporatism of the US, and in the next article lambaste EU regulations... not understanding the irony of their position.
The EU took its tradeoffs seriously, and committed to them. Whether it's a good position... I can't tell, really. Can't see the future. But it's a very visible and understood tradeoff:
Pressure the top 5% to provide for the bottom 95%. You can't get laid off and stress about food - because a failure includes paying all the laid off employees a severance. It's bad for starting a business... but is it bad for the people and the society at large? Call me a socialist, but I think people shouldn't have their livelihoods depend on the 2-week cycle of salary.
Should there be a framework for a more risk-hungry sector? Probably, something to mimic the US, but the avenues for abuse are exploited the moment loopholes open.
TLDR: Europe, and Europeans, do not _want_ the trillion dollar companies.
Exactly.
I feel it's simply put:
Europe is just further on the left of the `labour - capital` divide. As a region with insane inherited capital (all the old money), this makes perfect sense.
A lot of US media laments the corporatism of the US, and in the next article lambaste EU regulations... not understanding the irony of their position.
The EU took its tradeoffs seriously, and committed to them. Whether it's a good position... I can't tell, really. Can't see the future. But it's a very visible and understood tradeoff:
Pressure the top 5% to provide for the bottom 95%. You can't get laid off and stress about food - because a failure includes paying all the laid off employees a severance. It's bad for starting a business... but is it bad for the people and the society at large? Call me a socialist, but I think people shouldn't have their livelihoods depend on the 2-week cycle of salary.
Should there be a framework for a more risk-hungry sector? Probably, something to mimic the US, but the avenues for abuse are exploited the moment loopholes open.
TLDR: Europe, and Europeans, do not _want_ the trillion dollar companies.
The EU is just as capitalist. When von den Leyen gets lobbied in Brussels, it's not from worker parties or unions. If you want a spectrum I would say that the EU is more paternalistic. Less freedom, lower salaries and higher taxes and in return a slightly better social safety net.
But this is pure consolation for anyone who wants growth and opportunity. And it is not sustainable anyway. Austerity will soon start eating away at that social safety net.
Not sure if tax supported medical coverage, tax supported college level education, guaranteed vacation, sick time and maternity leave are a “slightly better” social safety net. Just to name a few.
The U.S. culture is so accustomed to the brutality and constant anxiety of not having any of these things that we don’t have the felt sense of actually having safety. Which makes it easy to dismiss - especially when fed the illusion that we are a step from being wealthy, a prerequisite of actually having this safety and more.
Why not allow for everyone to have it? It isn’t because we can’t afford it. We are just used to siphoning all of society’s wealth to a few selected people - and made to believe that we can join them.
Freedom to exploit a lot of people without accountability is different from freedom to live one’s life based on one’s calling and choices. Using the same word for both meanings leads to confusion.
In the U.S., the priorities are aligned behind the freedom to exploit, extract, and socialize all externalities. As individuals this comes at the expense of our own freedoms. I only have the “freedom” to operate in an increasingly adversarial environment.
The U.S. culture is so accustomed to the brutality and constant anxiety of not having any of these things that we don’t have the felt sense of actually having safety. Which makes it easy to dismiss - especially when fed the illusion that we are a step from being wealthy, a prerequisite of actually having this safety and more.
Why not allow for everyone to have it? It isn’t because we can’t afford it. We are just used to siphoning all of society’s wealth to a few selected people - and made to believe that we can join them.
Freedom to exploit a lot of people without accountability is different from freedom to live one’s life based on one’s calling and choices. Using the same word for both meanings leads to confusion.
In the U.S., the priorities are aligned behind the freedom to exploit, extract, and socialize all externalities. As individuals this comes at the expense of our own freedoms. I only have the “freedom” to operate in an increasingly adversarial environment.
A lot of the employee protections in practice make is just super hard to hire employees and super hard to fire low performers. It's good for seniors and bad for juniors and let me tell you, in the EU we do so much for old farts already. I have no appetite for more policies targeted towards them. That's another problem that I neglected to mention.
Those old farts paid in for 40-50 years. Why sell them out so quickly?
I can't help but think there is an alternative to this dichotomy. If, for example, US were to institute a high-percentage income tax bracket for the wealthy (maybe 65% over $1m) and used that to pay for national healthcare, would that really impact start-up culture? Maybe it affects some business at large, but it means the average joe can get laid off and not stress about hospital bills, while still encouraging a "risk-hungry sector".
Tl;Dr: Europe could have trillion dollar companies and still lean heavily towards labor, just like we could
Tl;Dr: Europe could have trillion dollar companies and still lean heavily towards labor, just like we could
> maybe 65% over $1m
Here in California, my marginal tax rate (if making over 1M) is already about 53%. In return, there is medi-cal (which is shitty[1]), 6 weeks of parental leave at 65% salary, crappy schools on average but excellent if one has a special needs kid etc. So not so great safety net.
Ironically, through a big tech job (which is supposed to be a rapacious corp with zero regards to employee wellness), I get far better protections - amazing insurance(s), 4 months of parental leave at full pay (including RSUs), all sorts of benefits etc etc.
The trade-off is clear to me. I want more of those trillion dollar corporations around me and have very little faith in Federal and California governments to improve their safety nets even if they jack up my marginal tax rate from 53 to 65%.
[1] but again, my Canadian and UK families have horror stories about their healthcare systems as well so there is that
Here in California, my marginal tax rate (if making over 1M) is already about 53%. In return, there is medi-cal (which is shitty[1]), 6 weeks of parental leave at 65% salary, crappy schools on average but excellent if one has a special needs kid etc. So not so great safety net.
Ironically, through a big tech job (which is supposed to be a rapacious corp with zero regards to employee wellness), I get far better protections - amazing insurance(s), 4 months of parental leave at full pay (including RSUs), all sorts of benefits etc etc.
The trade-off is clear to me. I want more of those trillion dollar corporations around me and have very little faith in Federal and California governments to improve their safety nets even if they jack up my marginal tax rate from 53 to 65%.
[1] but again, my Canadian and UK families have horror stories about their healthcare systems as well so there is that
If you live in New York you are already paying 56%.
There are 500,000 households making over a million if you divide that number into a single person making a million or more that would drop more.
That 9% of such a low base won't cover costs.
There are 500,000 households making over a million if you divide that number into a single person making a million or more that would drop more.
That 9% of such a low base won't cover costs.
> Europe, and Europeans, do not _want_ the trillion dollar companies.
And that’s why I will say ‘fuck you too’ rather than ‘goodbye’ when my O-1 is finally approved.
And that’s why I will say ‘fuck you too’ rather than ‘goodbye’ when my O-1 is finally approved.
> even a functional military-industrial ecosystem -- is basically incompatible with Europe's regulatory
Military ecosystems get a lot of exceptions
> about how Norway and Italy tax unrealized gains to such an extent that running a SV-style startup is basically illegal
These are two completely different things. Yes they don't get praise from me, but if you're planning how your company is going to work, you need to understand the differences (and yes Norway is the worse one here IMHO)
> Depending on the business you're in, it can be smart to incorporate in the Caiman Islands and work out of Europe on a satellite office basis, but you definitely want to limit your exposure to EU rules.
100% agree
But here's what most companies opening shop do: they have accountants and lawyers to help them navigate the bureaucracy (or subcontract some of the compliance work). People here take regulation to be "I've tried nothing and I've ran out of ideas" when it's mostly a subcontracting cost.
Military ecosystems get a lot of exceptions
> about how Norway and Italy tax unrealized gains to such an extent that running a SV-style startup is basically illegal
These are two completely different things. Yes they don't get praise from me, but if you're planning how your company is going to work, you need to understand the differences (and yes Norway is the worse one here IMHO)
> Depending on the business you're in, it can be smart to incorporate in the Caiman Islands and work out of Europe on a satellite office basis, but you definitely want to limit your exposure to EU rules.
100% agree
But here's what most companies opening shop do: they have accountants and lawyers to help them navigate the bureaucracy (or subcontract some of the compliance work). People here take regulation to be "I've tried nothing and I've ran out of ideas" when it's mostly a subcontracting cost.
Yes! Thanks for the links.
Is it? I mean before COVID and especially before 2008 EU was thriving and in reality there wasn‘t substantially more or less regulation back then. (Yes GDPR came, but I highly doubt that this was a major factor).
In my opinion EU countries missed web 2.0 and where way to risk averse and old school to invest in those startups, that is why many founders moved to US. But I don‘t think regulation is the major factor, may be A reason, but I doubt it is THE reason.
I think most of the „bad“ regulation is actually national. EU regulation in many cases makes it easier to make business than the respective national laws. Tax for example is mainly national. Despite some attempts of unification.
Is it? I mean before COVID and especially before 2008 EU was thriving and in reality there wasn‘t substantially more or less regulation back then. (Yes GDPR came, but I highly doubt that this was a major factor).
In my opinion EU countries missed web 2.0 and where way to risk averse and old school to invest in those startups, that is why many founders moved to US. But I don‘t think regulation is the major factor, may be A reason, but I doubt it is THE reason.
I think most of the „bad“ regulation is actually national. EU regulation in many cases makes it easier to make business than the respective national laws. Tax for example is mainly national. Despite some attempts of unification.
Once you have a technological breakthrough that requires lots of exploration to figure out which products will succeed, regulation is a competitive disadvantage.
For established industries regulation just increases prices. ... Until a new technology comes up that allows new competitors to enter the market. Like Tesla, SpaceX.
For established industries regulation just increases prices. ... Until a new technology comes up that allows new competitors to enter the market. Like Tesla, SpaceX.
Hmm both SpaceX and Tesla are heavily subsidised by the government
Funnily enough many of the basic breakthroughs in AI were done in Europe, but at universities.
Sadly people don‘t invest in Europe in startups as in the US, therefore the companies were formed in the US, even tough research is done here.
Funnily enough many of the basic breakthroughs in AI were done in Europe, but at universities.
Sadly people don‘t invest in Europe in startups as in the US, therefore the companies were formed in the US, even tough research is done here.
> I'd only note that the EU is not a monolith, local regulations and tax laws can differ wildly
It's not really justified to express anti-EU sentiment on the grounds of local laws which have little to do with the EU though...
Anyway, most US states have no unicorns and low levels of VC investment, despite zero exposure to EU rules and similar regulatory climates to California which receives more VC funding than the rest of them put together. For all Germany's famously pernickety regulation, Bavaria saw more VC investment than numerous larger US states last year and "you'd have to be a masochist to start a business here" Norway is in the top 10 countries worldwide for VC funding per capita which suggests that at least the masochists get funding! Frankly, it's unrealistic to expect any European country to be remotely like California in the near future for a whole host of structural reasons that have nothing to do with the EU or local regulations, and if the actual tradeoff is more like the labour laws of Michigan for the VC investment levels approaching that of Michigan it's not clear there's any win for Europe in deregulating.
It's not really justified to express anti-EU sentiment on the grounds of local laws which have little to do with the EU though...
Anyway, most US states have no unicorns and low levels of VC investment, despite zero exposure to EU rules and similar regulatory climates to California which receives more VC funding than the rest of them put together. For all Germany's famously pernickety regulation, Bavaria saw more VC investment than numerous larger US states last year and "you'd have to be a masochist to start a business here" Norway is in the top 10 countries worldwide for VC funding per capita which suggests that at least the masochists get funding! Frankly, it's unrealistic to expect any European country to be remotely like California in the near future for a whole host of structural reasons that have nothing to do with the EU or local regulations, and if the actual tradeoff is more like the labour laws of Michigan for the VC investment levels approaching that of Michigan it's not clear there's any win for Europe in deregulating.
Apparently there are plenty of companies in Italy, Germany, and Norway.
What we don't have are those sort of stunts expecting a never ending of exponentional growth, with money to burn that grows on trees, and without any regard for employees working rights.
Those 58.76, 84.48 and 5.52 million people work somewhere (minus current unemployment rates).
What we don't have are those sort of stunts expecting a never ending of exponentional growth, with money to burn that grows on trees, and without any regard for employees working rights.
Those 58.76, 84.48 and 5.52 million people work somewhere (minus current unemployment rates).
Italy has an unemployment rate of 7.8%
6.4% in September according to EUROSTAT and keep in mind that those numbers are likely skewed because a significant number of people do in fact work, without declaring any type of income and without paying taxes so the actualy number is likely lower than that. I'd bet the number is < 5%
I work for an EU-based consulting company (a la Thoughtworks in the EU), and am personally based in the US. My two cents is that the European leadership is fairly ignorant of modern technology and software practices. The instead choose to loft remedial "wins" as a sign that our company is on the cutting-edge of web 3.0, which has been laughed away as irrelevant in America. The newest fad at my company is to wrap AI agents in some fancy UX and claim that we're now an AI company. The head of technology holds a design degree and 0 years of experience doing any sort of engineering or software development, and consistently demonstrates an inability to distinguish fad from reality in software. Apparently, he was "short-listed" for some sort of EU tech leader of the year award, which makes me question what sort of talent even exists over there when someone like that can be considered for an award. Personally, I'm with Seinfeld in thinking that "all awards are stupid", but that's besides the point.
I'm actively trying to start something up and get out of corporate servitude for good. I am lucky to live in America, based on my experience with European tech leadership and the comments here. I'm also consistently shocked by the lack of technical expertise that my developer counterparts in the EU exhibit. Most of them demonstrate the depth of knowledge that a couple Coursera Python courses and about 40 hours of YouTube dev-fluencer videos would instill, despite them having several years of experience as a "senior software developer". It's a bit embarrassing, to say the least.
I'm actively trying to start something up and get out of corporate servitude for good. I am lucky to live in America, based on my experience with European tech leadership and the comments here. I'm also consistently shocked by the lack of technical expertise that my developer counterparts in the EU exhibit. Most of them demonstrate the depth of knowledge that a couple Coursera Python courses and about 40 hours of YouTube dev-fluencer videos would instill, despite them having several years of experience as a "senior software developer". It's a bit embarrassing, to say the least.
Not EU specifically, but I support other international regions and work with teams supporting the EU. I'm not in big tech, but a different sector for a large company.
I can say that delays can and do happen because of regulation. This could be extra work for privacy regulations, or for accessibility standards, etc. Even just the fact that you need legal review in multiple languages can add delays. The more regulations you have and the diversity of regulations among the numerous locations you support, the more resources you need (time and/or personnel).
Most of the regulations are there for good reason. In my opinion, it's the differences between each supported region that causes the most problems. In some cases things like the EU help standardize the regs vs having 20 different definitions of them.
I can say that delays can and do happen because of regulation. This could be extra work for privacy regulations, or for accessibility standards, etc. Even just the fact that you need legal review in multiple languages can add delays. The more regulations you have and the diversity of regulations among the numerous locations you support, the more resources you need (time and/or personnel).
Most of the regulations are there for good reason. In my opinion, it's the differences between each supported region that causes the most problems. In some cases things like the EU help standardize the regs vs having 20 different definitions of them.
On the surface level EU citizens are far better protected from corporate exploitation by regulation than US citizens. Note there is no such protection from state actors, and overal the distinction between big tech and 3 letter agencies is 'fluid' in the US
As for retaining talent and startups, that's not easy if your opponent has unlimited free reserve currency monopoly money.
As for retaining talent and startups, that's not easy if your opponent has unlimited free reserve currency monopoly money.
As a consumer outside the EU, I honestly appreciate much of the effect it has done for my everyday life:
-the USB-C standard chips away at Apple's proprietary walled garden, which I see as a win for consumers and the environment, and personally I like the simplicity of having one useful standard cable. The other day I charged the iPhone of a person on the train who needed a charge; in the past they were out of luck because I use an android phone.
-their cookie directive isn't perfect, but I prefer it to the previous status quo of websites tracking with your average user completely unaware of the vast network of the "partners" privy to their data by default. For me, clicking "reject all" or just leaving those websites altogether is not a big issue.
-their restrictions on single use plastics have cascading effects outside the EU
-the fining of huge tech conglomeretes for anti-consumer behaviour with GDPR fines (Meta, Amazon, Google, etc.) provides at least some roadblock to their behaviour in my view.
Most of the comments seem to focus on the effect of their policies on smaller scale startups and entrepreneurs, which may certainly be a problem to adress, but as a consumer I see the EU at least taking some action on issues I care about.
Most of the comments seem to focus on the effect of their policies on smaller scale startups and entrepreneurs, which may certainly be a problem to adress, but as a consumer I see the EU at least taking some action on issues I care about.
big tech is big babies that don't like when you tell them that you cannot do whatever you want at the expense of customers so they get fussy
From my European perspective, US Big Tech isn’t being vocal enough in its resistance to EU regulatory overreach.
EU regulation makes starting a tech company very difficult, expensive and risky. I shuttered two of my personal projects when the GDPR came along as the legislation was complex, ambiguous and threatened punitive fines if I didn’t jump through the ambiguously defined hoops. And there are more and more EU-origin laws that I’d have to become an expert in, in order to comply. It’s just not worth the effort and risk. If I ever had a successful project idea I’d start it in America. Particularly with the new administration in 2025.
I will never forgive the EU for its directives that led to all websites prompting for cookies. If the EU lawmakers had any competence they’d have designed the law in such a way to prevent nefarious practices, rather than allowing nefarious practices AND creating a UX nightmare for all users of the whole internet!
EU regulation makes starting a tech company very difficult, expensive and risky. I shuttered two of my personal projects when the GDPR came along as the legislation was complex, ambiguous and threatened punitive fines if I didn’t jump through the ambiguously defined hoops. And there are more and more EU-origin laws that I’d have to become an expert in, in order to comply. It’s just not worth the effort and risk. If I ever had a successful project idea I’d start it in America. Particularly with the new administration in 2025.
I will never forgive the EU for its directives that led to all websites prompting for cookies. If the EU lawmakers had any competence they’d have designed the law in such a way to prevent nefarious practices, rather than allowing nefarious practices AND creating a UX nightmare for all users of the whole internet!
Sad to hear, but most of the the stuff that gets said about GDPR online is BS.
(I have a law background)
actually you also don‘t always need a cookie banner (not mandated by GDPR) and being compliant is not as difficult as many consultants (who want to make money) say it is.
Still even though the idea of GDPR was great, but they didn‘t think about good and easy implementation. Which sucks and I understand the frustration.
actually you also don‘t always need a cookie banner (not mandated by GDPR) and being compliant is not as difficult as many consultants (who want to make money) say it is.
Still even though the idea of GDPR was great, but they didn‘t think about good and easy implementation. Which sucks and I understand the frustration.
The mere existence of regulation is part of the problem. Without precise understanding of the law, you don't know if your use cases are fine/excempted. The safe default assumption is that your site is not compliant with regulations until you can prove otherwise, involving a lawyer.
That regulation would not have come into existence if there were no privacy problems caused by the ones that have to comply to the regulations
Right, and that regulation has a cost. I hope it's worth it.
There were certainly problems.
But the GDPR and ePrivacy directives don't protect us from nefarious cross-site tracking cookies.
Prior to the GDPR, websites just tracked us.
Now they track us AND present an irritating warning that users have learnt to mindlessly "accept"
But the GDPR and ePrivacy directives don't protect us from nefarious cross-site tracking cookies.
Prior to the GDPR, websites just tracked us.
Now they track us AND present an irritating warning that users have learnt to mindlessly "accept"
This is simply not true.
Given you have a law background I can understand your appetite for new and complex regulation, and your desire to defend it.
Legal professionals live in a different world to entrepreneurs - with diametrically opposed priorities.
Legal professionals live in a different world to entrepreneurs - with diametrically opposed priorities.
I have a law background, put am in the startup scene since 7 years as a founder.
Yes it is unnecessarily complex, but as I said: there is so much BS floating around. In reality if you have goodwill and yes invest a little time it is not that hard to be compliant and in praxis if you are not: usually there is the concept of warning before fining, so you do get a second chance.
Yes it is unnecessarily complex, but as I said: there is so much BS floating around. In reality if you have goodwill and yes invest a little time it is not that hard to be compliant and in praxis if you are not: usually there is the concept of warning before fining, so you do get a second chance.
Of course there is
And it goes beyond the reasonable criticism
"VC crowds" absolutely like bashing any regulation whatsoever. And while I can understand the effects on startups, at the same time they ignore the other amount of regulation and gotchas they have to deal in the US
In the same way some 90% of stuff we read about GDPR (or the recent charger regulation) is BS and cheap takes. "can be fined up to 10Mi Euros" is the typical "I don't understand GDPR anti-shibbolet"
There's also one important point that most people don't realize (especially Americans) is that the legal systems are different. And even Common law countries like Ireland and the UK (even before Brexit) worked in very different ways legally (and enforcement wise).
(And of course a lot of things people blame the EU for is just the local country regulation)
And it goes beyond the reasonable criticism
"VC crowds" absolutely like bashing any regulation whatsoever. And while I can understand the effects on startups, at the same time they ignore the other amount of regulation and gotchas they have to deal in the US
In the same way some 90% of stuff we read about GDPR (or the recent charger regulation) is BS and cheap takes. "can be fined up to 10Mi Euros" is the typical "I don't understand GDPR anti-shibbolet"
There's also one important point that most people don't realize (especially Americans) is that the legal systems are different. And even Common law countries like Ireland and the UK (even before Brexit) worked in very different ways legally (and enforcement wise).
(And of course a lot of things people blame the EU for is just the local country regulation)
I would say there's an anti-human sentiment from big tech. EU often passes regulations to protect the population, and these thwart huge short-term gains that big tech loves to grab at the expense of all of society.
> Are these criticisms fair
Of course they're not. Big tech is just about maximizing one single variable, technological growth, and they should be crushed.
> Are these criticisms fair
Of course they're not. Big tech is just about maximizing one single variable, technological growth, and they should be crushed.
Except they don’t. Have I been saved with the cookie law ? No, it’s just a pain in the arse for everyone.
But we got net neutrality right ? Well no, they fucked that up as well with ISP blocking whatever ports they want. The law is useless.
The fact is the EU don’t understand tech properly and they screwup all the regulation around it.
But we got net neutrality right ? Well no, they fucked that up as well with ISP blocking whatever ports they want. The law is useless.
The fact is the EU don’t understand tech properly and they screwup all the regulation around it.
Is the cookie law useless though? At least, it's helped me. There have already been several sites that I have just navigated AWAY from because they didn't allow "no cookies" and I decided that site wasn't worth it. Pretty useful in my opinion.
I say and feel the same things and I am a nobody. The EU just sucks majorly for a certain type of people.
I see it as super riches or super corporations just want to do whatever they want so they got "frustrated" when they could not.
As somebody who criticizes the EU a lot on HN, I want to say that European business culture is just as backwards. It's not just a couple of clowns in Brussels. The whole continent has been coasting on past glory for the past three decades and now the road to catch up to the US and China is long and steep and full of perils.
I have worked at both private and public research institutions and in both cases I witnessed a lot of waste of funding and nothing much of value being produced. I don't know what you could blame this on. I personally like to say it's bad leadership at all levels. I guess, maybe the system is so bureaucratic that the type of leadership you get is the kind that is all talk and no substance.
I have also witnessed a lot of mismanaged oversight: cases where the people overseeing the expenditure of funds were completely unfit to estimate the value of work being produced. Related to this, often time I witnessed instances where people were dealing with bureaucratic procedures so unfit with respect to the task at hand, that they would just sign on the paper, what is effectively a lie. So it's not even that there is a lot of bureaucracy. It's also that a lot of bureaucracy is lies on paper. It does not actually produce any value, track any metric or keep any people in line.
This is only my perception and my experience. But yeah, bad leadership and bad cultural practices that need to be replaced. Unfortunately the people who are to blame are the ones in charge of fixing the problem so nothing will change anytime soon. Maybe this is another problem: bad leadership never gets replaced.
I have worked at both private and public research institutions and in both cases I witnessed a lot of waste of funding and nothing much of value being produced. I don't know what you could blame this on. I personally like to say it's bad leadership at all levels. I guess, maybe the system is so bureaucratic that the type of leadership you get is the kind that is all talk and no substance.
I have also witnessed a lot of mismanaged oversight: cases where the people overseeing the expenditure of funds were completely unfit to estimate the value of work being produced. Related to this, often time I witnessed instances where people were dealing with bureaucratic procedures so unfit with respect to the task at hand, that they would just sign on the paper, what is effectively a lie. So it's not even that there is a lot of bureaucracy. It's also that a lot of bureaucracy is lies on paper. It does not actually produce any value, track any metric or keep any people in line.
This is only my perception and my experience. But yeah, bad leadership and bad cultural practices that need to be replaced. Unfortunately the people who are to blame are the ones in charge of fixing the problem so nothing will change anytime soon. Maybe this is another problem: bad leadership never gets replaced.
>>> cases where the people overseeing the expenditure of funds were completely unfit to estimate the value of work being produced [...] It's also that a lot of bureaucracy is lies on paper. It does not actually produce any value, track any metric or keep any people in line.
100% agree with this and it's extremely frustrating to deal with that. I've got the feeling that our managers look to the US and see people like Musk and Trump (no judgement here!) making .. let's say "bold claims" - aka bullshitting aka lying aka marketing, call it whatever you want - and think they can just copy that. But Europeans just suck at marketing / bullshitting, it's just not our strength. Now we're stuck with bullshitting "leaders" who cannot deliver results. And this creates a vicious circle where actually capable people refuse to take on any kind of leadership roles as they'll be forced to play that game.
100% agree with this and it's extremely frustrating to deal with that. I've got the feeling that our managers look to the US and see people like Musk and Trump (no judgement here!) making .. let's say "bold claims" - aka bullshitting aka lying aka marketing, call it whatever you want - and think they can just copy that. But Europeans just suck at marketing / bullshitting, it's just not our strength. Now we're stuck with bullshitting "leaders" who cannot deliver results. And this creates a vicious circle where actually capable people refuse to take on any kind of leadership roles as they'll be forced to play that game.
Is there an Anti-Innovation and an Anti-Tech and an Anti-Business sentiment from EU?
Status quo ante technium :)
Status quo ante technium :)
At the same time, there’s been a noticeable wave of criticism against the EU coming from US-based VCs and tech companies. Many posts claim the EU is “dying” as a tech hub, often pointing to stricter regulations and fragmented markets as reasons. While the EU undoubtedly has challenges, like limited access to growth capital and fragmented venture funding, these narratives often feel inflated.
Take USB-C as a standard, for example. Many US-based critics framed this as overreach by the EU, even though it benefits consumers and smaller tech companies by reducing proprietary lock-in. As a tech company owner myself, I see it as a win for democratization and innovation—it levels the playing field, making it easier for new entrants to compete.
It’s worth questioning if this negative sentiment is part of a coordinated effort to lobby against the EU. The lobbying budgets of major tech firms are enormous, and the stakes are high. The EU’s regulatory framework—designed to promote fair competition and protect users—directly challenges the monopolistic advantages that some companies rely on.
While Europe does need to address legitimate problems, like retaining talent and scaling startups, many of these critiques seem driven by those with vested interests rather than a genuine concern for the EU’s future. What do you think? Are these criticisms fair, or do they serve as a smokescreen for resisting necessary regulation?