Google Bard blocks all European Union countries(9to5google.com)
9to5google.com
Google Bard blocks all European Union countries
https://9to5google.com/2023/05/11/google-bard-european-union/
302 comments
Apparently it's 180 Countries and regions. So every little island is included, even if it's not a separate country. Someone at Google finally learned marketing I guess.
"Regions" is used so that it captures disputed territories such as Taiwan (TWN) and semi-autonomous regions which have country codes but aren't countries e.g Hong Kong (HKG) and Macau (MAC). You will notice that most airlines and international companies now refer to country dropdowns as region dropdowns, primarily to satisfy the Chinese government.
[deleted]
>> Someone at Google finally learned marketing I guess.
That’s their brand. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
Always assumed Canada had a kind of European flavor to it. Thanks Google for confirming it...
They for sure do, they spell a lot of words different as they use the French spelling. Like neighbour and favour.
I've never considered it the french spelling. It's the british english spelling:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
US tends to drop the u's in a lot of words. It doesn't make the original word french.
That said, a lot of english words do come from french. In fact, the english word favour came from the old french favor, apparently?
c. 1300, "attractiveness, beauty, charm" (archaic), from Old French favor "a favor; approval, praise; applause; partiality" (13c., Modern French faveur), from Latin favorem (nominative favor) "good will, inclination, partiality, support," coined by Cicero from stem of favere "to show kindness to," from PIE *ghow-e- "to honor, revere, worship" (cognate: Old Norse ga "to heed").
US tends to drop the u's in a lot of words. It doesn't make the original word french.
That said, a lot of english words do come from french. In fact, the english word favour came from the old french favor, apparently?
c. 1300, "attractiveness, beauty, charm" (archaic), from Old French favor "a favor; approval, praise; applause; partiality" (13c., Modern French faveur), from Latin favorem (nominative favor) "good will, inclination, partiality, support," coined by Cicero from stem of favere "to show kindness to," from PIE *ghow-e- "to honor, revere, worship" (cognate: Old Norse ga "to heed").
I literally can't tell how much you're joking. There's nothing French about the spelling of these contemporary English words, even though they have norman roots.
I didn't know english and french were only a single letter apart in some cases. Is there a common root of some kind?
> Is there a common root of some kind?
Yes, the common root is french, as in "Normans" :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
Yes, the common root is french, as in "Normans" :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
One of the neat linguistic things still in English from the Norman conquest - the word for the meat in English (which is traced back to German) is often the word for the animal in French.
Meat from cattle is beef. Steer in French is beof ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beef : From Middle English beef, bef, beof, borrowed from Anglo-Norman beof, Old French buef, boef (“ox”) )
Meat from a chicken is poultry. Chicken is poulet in French. ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poultry : From Middle English pultrie, from Old French pouleterie, from poulet, diminutive of poule (“hen”), from Latin pullus (“chick”). )
Meat from a swine is pork. The word for swine in French is porc. ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pork From Middle English pork, porc, via Anglo-Norman, from Old French porc (“swine, hog, pig; pork”), from Latin porcus (“domestic hog, pig”).)
This is because when the normans (who were the rulers at the time) wanted poulet on the table, they didn't want a live chicken - they wanted a cooked chicken and so the word the meat and the animal diverged in English.
There are also some interesting Spanish / Arabic word pairs from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Spain where the word in Spanish differs from the romance side of the family tree.
Meat from cattle is beef. Steer in French is beof ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beef : From Middle English beef, bef, beof, borrowed from Anglo-Norman beof, Old French buef, boef (“ox”) )
Meat from a chicken is poultry. Chicken is poulet in French. ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poultry : From Middle English pultrie, from Old French pouleterie, from poulet, diminutive of poule (“hen”), from Latin pullus (“chick”). )
Meat from a swine is pork. The word for swine in French is porc. ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pork From Middle English pork, porc, via Anglo-Norman, from Old French porc (“swine, hog, pig; pork”), from Latin porcus (“domestic hog, pig”).)
This is because when the normans (who were the rulers at the time) wanted poulet on the table, they didn't want a live chicken - they wanted a cooked chicken and so the word the meat and the animal diverged in English.
There are also some interesting Spanish / Arabic word pairs from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Spain where the word in Spanish differs from the romance side of the family tree.
Meat from a chicken is chicken. The class of edible animals to which chickens belong, and the general term for their meat, is poultry.
Very basic words in english (eg water, man, milk, drink) tend to have Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) roots whereas newer more abstract words tend to have come in after the 1066 Norman Conquest, with French words eclipsing their Anglo-Saxon equivalents, as the Norman aristocracy supplanted the Anglo-Saxon rulers.
Well they do speak French
And English!
But (almost) no German. The most spoken (native) language in Europe.
According to Wikipedia (and unsurprisingly), that's technically Russian. Western Europe, perhaps?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_...
Thanks for correction. I was under the assumption Russian was second.
wow, I did not know that!
other fun fact I learned from wikipedia - "German-Americans make up the largest self-reported ancestry group within the United States accounting for roughly 49 million people and approximately 17% of the population of the US"
other fun fact I learned from wikipedia - "German-Americans make up the largest self-reported ancestry group within the United States accounting for roughly 49 million people and approximately 17% of the population of the US"
Weird that its not available in Brazil. Thats a big market, no?
Google has been at odds with Brazil's judicial system, likely doesn't want to add more controversial fuel to the fire.
Brazil implements a local copy of GDPR, "LGPD".
So does Turkey with KVKK, but Bard is available in Turkey. There must be something else.
"Google Bard blocks all European Union countries" more like "Google Bard illegal in the European Union", like it is a Google choice at all.
"Google Bard won't even bother to try and comply with consumer privacy protections"
“Upside of complying with EU regulations not worth cost and risk”
"No apparent way to recapture the value EU regulations generate for the users."
You think privacy has no value?
From the EU I say bye bye then. Nothing of value is lost, at least for me. Tired of being the product, and tired of not knowing where my data goes and to who.
Then it looks like everyone is happy on both sides, right? This is good news.
Big win for those who care about privacy over all else.
Big win for those who care about privacy over all else.
Privacy is like insurance. A little downside for everyday so you don't lose everything if luck turns on you.
Lack of economic growth compounds over the centuries toward remarkable differences between prosperous and miserable countries.
Are you also making the claim that the EU lags behind the US in growth?
Otherwise that seems like a non-sequitur.
If you are, it seems that US's advantage [2] is just sheer number of people since the growth/capita is the same [1].
[1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat... [2]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locat...
Otherwise that seems like a non-sequitur.
If you are, it seems that US's advantage [2] is just sheer number of people since the growth/capita is the same [1].
[1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat... [2]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locat...
If that's the case, in Europe we've been compounding growth for many centuries before the US even existed, we must be far ahead of you.
Yes, I wouldn't want to live in the US either.
"Complying costs are >0, hence incompatible with late-stage capitalism tenets"
You really think Google doesn’t spend a single penny on compliance anywhere?
I can understand hating Google and hating our current mode of capitalism, but it’s a little hard to understand making such an obviously false claim. Do you believe what you said? Or is it just edgelordism?
I can understand hating Google and hating our current mode of capitalism, but it’s a little hard to understand making such an obviously false claim. Do you believe what you said? Or is it just edgelordism?
You should see how many European banks don't bother to comply with basic financial corruption protections and just block US citizens from having accounts
> You should see how many European banks don't bother to comply with basic financial corruption protections and just block US citizens from having accounts
You should see how many European banks don't bother to comply with the US law in Europe, and just block US citizens in Europe from having accounts in Europe.
FTFY
Now, please explain why do you think that the US should expose their regulations to foreign banks operating in foreign countries?
You should see how many European banks don't bother to comply with the US law in Europe, and just block US citizens in Europe from having accounts in Europe.
FTFY
Now, please explain why do you think that the US should expose their regulations to foreign banks operating in foreign countries?
Because those foreign banks want access to USD. Don't want to comply with US regulations? Just don't use USD.
Can you guys trade Euro and other foreign currencies in US banks?
I don't know. Never had to. Why do you ask?
Well, my bank complies with local corruption and money laundering protections as mandated by law. I have to spend time getting an interview every few years to get a risk score. They and most of the other banks just send US citizens to their competitors instead of spending money to comply with US regulations too. It seems that there are not enough US customers around here.
>Well, my bank complies with local corruption and money laundering protections as mandated by law
My Google complies with local data protections and regulations as mandated by law.
>It seems that there are not enough US customers around here.
So you're telling me it's okay not to comply with a regulation because the market doesn't justify it and not because you're cartoonishly evil? Interesting. I wonder if we could apply that principle to other circumstances.
My Google complies with local data protections and regulations as mandated by law.
>It seems that there are not enough US customers around here.
So you're telling me it's okay not to comply with a regulation because the market doesn't justify it and not because you're cartoonishly evil? Interesting. I wonder if we could apply that principle to other circumstances.
Not complying with regulations of other countries you don't operate in is normal, or am I wrong?
It’s not just US citizens, but anyone who holds a green card or H1 visa. Even a Swiss can be blocked from getting a Swiss bank account.
You seem to imply EU regulators do not require european banks to "comply with basic financial corruption protections". Any source to that?
What comes to european banks not wanting to do anything with US related entities, my understanding is that the primary reason is the non-trivial amount of red tape and legal risks associated with US entities weighted against relatively small amoumt of pontential customers.
What comes to european banks not wanting to do anything with US related entities, my understanding is that the primary reason is the non-trivial amount of red tape and legal risks associated with US entities weighted against relatively small amoumt of pontential customers.
>my understanding is that the primary reason is the non-trivial amount of red tape and legal risks associated with US entities
That's also the reason why some corporations don't bother with GPDR!
That's also the reason why some corporations don't bother with GPDR!
> non-trivial amount of red tape and legal risks
It seems you are also describing GDPR
It seems you are also describing GDPR
For this unaware, see this article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-land-of-the-free-wont-leave... (mirror: https://archive.is/XbbJS)
Or perhaps just: "we need some time to setup things so that we can comply and we don't want to block a global rollout to countries that don't bother creating laws that protect their citizens"
Bard is not being "blocked" (more like, hasn't been released) only in the EU and nothing says it is past beta stage anyway, but that being said it can be a case of: "American companies trying to comply with regulation in the most spiteful way possible"
See also: the recent sesame controversy
See also: the recent sesame controversy
That is probably the most succinct way of putting it.
I wonder if we will see some kind of compliance or control panel for data sharing in the future. Perhaps only EU citizens will have this privilege.
My expectations is that whatever mechanism google will implement to comply with EU laws will become the default for how the do things for everybody, for the simple reason that doing something special for EU would be an operational burden.
There's nothing inherently illegal about Bard/ChatGTP (yet). They just want to do stuff like collect all user input and train on it that's illegal in EU.
To do that, you have to ask for users’ informed consent.
It makes no sense, UK still has the same consent laws as EU, and Bard is deployed there. Maybe an oversight? It does look like they don't know what they are doing.
I wouldn’t exclude an oversight, given how they didn’t exclude Åland.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914946
If you look further down that thread, people also highlighted they included more countries with “adequacy,” i.e., that the EU considers having a comparable privacy regime.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914946
If you look further down that thread, people also highlighted they included more countries with “adequacy,” i.e., that the EU considers having a comparable privacy regime.
Asking for consent isn't enough. You also have to provide an alternative for users who don't want to consent.
The problem may be that you cant delete the data on request once it has been used to train a model.
A similar problem happens with all of their existing continuously trained models, like the ones that power their ad recommendation system.
They do comply with that. They can also comply with this.
I think it all boils down to opportunity costs. Implementing a system that will ensure that the models are fully retrained from raw corpus/logs within the required timeframe simply takes time. Time they don't have since openai and MS are pressing them in that front.
I think some teams at Google will work in the background to ensure that the whole shebang will be GDPR compliant while in parallel google signals to the markets that they are not a dying giant
They do comply with that. They can also comply with this.
I think it all boils down to opportunity costs. Implementing a system that will ensure that the models are fully retrained from raw corpus/logs within the required timeframe simply takes time. Time they don't have since openai and MS are pressing them in that front.
I think some teams at Google will work in the background to ensure that the whole shebang will be GDPR compliant while in parallel google signals to the markets that they are not a dying giant
It kinda is though? Like, to make a product that is illegal there when the competition operates (arguably) better within the legal framework. We can argue if the law is just, but this is not the EU treating Bard differently than its competitors, so it's more of a product choice.
The answer is that OpenAI has a lot less revenue on the line, so they're more willing to take risks in legal grey areas.
I haven't checked, but OpenAI probably also doesn't have any office in EU and doesn't sell services specifically to EU citizens/companies. Thus they may claim not to do any business in EU and ignore letters from EU authorities.
They may but they haven't
No the EU is not treating bard differently. The EU is not doing anything yet.
I don't see how Bing or OpenAI can comply with GDPR.
The difference is that Google seems to care more (perhaps because they are under bigger scrutiny) while MS and OpenAI are pulling a "better to ask forgiveness than ask permissions".
Funny how no matter what you do you're damned.
If google decides to just roll it out everywhere like openai and bing did and then wait until a complaint or a lawsuit comes and only then pull the solution out of the hat (you just got several months for free in order to work on a solution while waiting for the complaint or lawsuit), well if google does that they'd be criticised because they do that. If they pause the relevant markets, well they're criticised because it's "immoral to be just complying with weaker laws since there is a stronger law somewhere else that should be taken as example for everyone"
The difference is that Google seems to care more (perhaps because they are under bigger scrutiny) while MS and OpenAI are pulling a "better to ask forgiveness than ask permissions".
Funny how no matter what you do you're damned.
If google decides to just roll it out everywhere like openai and bing did and then wait until a complaint or a lawsuit comes and only then pull the solution out of the hat (you just got several months for free in order to work on a solution while waiting for the complaint or lawsuit), well if google does that they'd be criticised because they do that. If they pause the relevant markets, well they're criticised because it's "immoral to be just complying with weaker laws since there is a stronger law somewhere else that should be taken as example for everyone"
ChatGPT runs just fine. This is Google not wanting to comply.
More likely a legal opinion in Google that is waving a shroud of non-compliance and a $200m fine.
Result : every exec immediately stops everything until this is clarified. They have to, it's their legal duty and if we are talking Google scale revenues there's a lot at stake. Many shareholders are waiting to sue...
Result : every exec immediately stops everything until this is clarified. They have to, it's their legal duty and if we are talking Google scale revenues there's a lot at stake. Many shareholders are waiting to sue...
Hard to believe the threat of a $200m fine would cause an action this drastic. Presumably the think the cost could be much higher.
$200m for a not yet revenue generating feature? Easiest financial decision ever.
There is no way that Google will spend less than $200m developing Bard before it is profitable. By your logic, it should be the easiest financial decision ever to stop.
Money spent developing the product gets you, well, the product in exchange. Money spent paying an unnecessary fine gets you nothing except bad PR.
Italy has banned ChatGPT and European Parliament is already planning to curb it[1]. If I have to bet, ChatGPT will likely face some serious issues in europe in coming months.
[1]: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/05/11/meps-push-to-b...
[1]: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/05/11/meps-push-to-b...
ChatGPT is back in Italy after they updated their privacy policy and added/changed a few options.
It's not illegal, they are just extra careful to not break something. They know how expensive it can be to fail in EU.
Honestly, announcing public release in 180+ countries, and omitting that you are leaving out half of western civilization, it's outright malignant.
Look, you can have the laws protecting your citizens from the horrors of everyday web-cookies and the privacy nightmares of the surveillance industry all you like. You can make them as heavy handed as you want, threaten massive fines on worldwide revenue, go mad.
You just can’t have them and also simultaneously expect everyone is going to find it worthwhile to deal with you under such laws, such that you’re outraged when they don’t. Or, well, you can, but it’s either quite foolish of you, or it’s imperialistic.
You just can’t have them and also simultaneously expect everyone is going to find it worthwhile to deal with you under such laws, such that you’re outraged when they don’t. Or, well, you can, but it’s either quite foolish of you, or it’s imperialistic.
EU privacy rules are not about the horrors of web-cookies. They require asking for informed consent when you do things that are invading privacies.
All the annoying cookie pop-ups are not mandated by the EU; they are a consequence of website operators choosing to use traffic data in a way that some users might disagree with. You can easily do without. You can, and many do, make them clear and informative.
Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.
This is not just about a frustrating cookie pop-up; this is about having legal options to prevent spammy telemarketers from scamming your elderly relatives. This is about mandating a way to tell ad platforms not to sell you prams after the death of your infant, or show gambling and alcohol ads to addicts.
All the annoying cookie pop-ups are not mandated by the EU; they are a consequence of website operators choosing to use traffic data in a way that some users might disagree with. You can easily do without. You can, and many do, make them clear and informative.
Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.
This is not just about a frustrating cookie pop-up; this is about having legal options to prevent spammy telemarketers from scamming your elderly relatives. This is about mandating a way to tell ad platforms not to sell you prams after the death of your infant, or show gambling and alcohol ads to addicts.
The official website for the European Union... with a cookie banner. https://european-union.europa.eu/
Surely there is a better way for the website operator to manage asking for permission for services that could be considered an invasion of privacy or avoiding using that all together.
Surely there is a better way for the website operator to manage asking for permission for services that could be considered an invasion of privacy or avoiding using that all together.
And you are more than welcome to design one and submit your proposal to the Council. Note that no one here objects to asking for permission. People resent the intentionally poorly designed version that doesn’t give visitors a meaningful, informed choice. The complaints have targeted either deliberately confusing messages, modals that block access to services that don’t need invasive data processing, or pop-ups that re-appear as soon as you refuse them.
There are compliant and well-designed versions: if a website operator chooses to use a frustrating one, that’s not because the law is wrong; it’s because the operator favors their short-term profit from reselling data over convenience (which is almost always a losing bet).
There are compliant and well-designed versions: if a website operator chooses to use a frustrating one, that’s not because the law is wrong; it’s because the operator favors their short-term profit from reselling data over convenience (which is almost always a losing bet).
> Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.
Imperialism for the good of the imperial subjects is as old as time. The barbarian nations need civilizing, and if they only knew what was good for them they'd gladly embrace our regime!
Or, as CS Lewis put it:
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience.
Imperialism for the good of the imperial subjects is as old as time. The barbarian nations need civilizing, and if they only knew what was good for them they'd gladly embrace our regime!
Or, as CS Lewis put it:
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience.
You are confusing paternalism (deciding what others want without asking them) with informed democracy. I’m not saying to decide for American voters. I’m saying that, if you explain GDPR to American citizens, they overwhelmingly think it’s a good idea. I’m not saying they should think so because I know better: I’m saying that they do.
The US is welcome to use any political system they want. The current system is a government of the people, by the corporations, for the executives.
The US is welcome to use any political system they want. The current system is a government of the people, by the corporations, for the executives.
No, I'm not, I think you missed the context. OP responded to this statement:
> You just can’t have them and also simultaneously expect everyone is going to find it worthwhile to deal with you under such laws, such that you’re outraged when they don’t. Or, well, you can, but it’s either quite foolish of you, or it’s imperialistic.
By saying:
> Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.
This is false. Whether the other nations being imposed upon would embrace the laws if they simply knew what was good for them is irrelevant to whether a state action is imperialistic. What matters is the degree of consent.
There's been a strong theme in this thread of people arguing that Google should be required to do business in the EU and obey their privacy laws, and that would be imperialistic.
> You just can’t have them and also simultaneously expect everyone is going to find it worthwhile to deal with you under such laws, such that you’re outraged when they don’t. Or, well, you can, but it’s either quite foolish of you, or it’s imperialistic.
By saying:
> Those laws would be imperialistic if a majority of citizens around the world, including a vast majority of American citizens, would not gladly demand the same protection when shown what websites do with their information.
This is false. Whether the other nations being imposed upon would embrace the laws if they simply knew what was good for them is irrelevant to whether a state action is imperialistic. What matters is the degree of consent.
There's been a strong theme in this thread of people arguing that Google should be required to do business in the EU and obey their privacy laws, and that would be imperialistic.
I'll have "cannot immediately use shiny new thing from faceless soulless tech giant" over "have to live under constant threat of identity theft and personal info leak" any day of the week, thank you.
And that's what you're getting. So why the complaint?
There's this implicit embedded assumption that because it's the EU we're talking about and not some small developing nation of course you can't just take your ball and decide not to play with them. But of course if you can make the finances work you can do just that.
This is the balance of powers between the EU and the US. The EU is too big and profitable market to ignore, so it can get away with significant degree of autonomy - but not too much, thanks to US having a lot of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and the EU countries approximately zero.
I don't think we care too much about nuclear-powered aircraft carriers too much in the civilized world.
The European Union and other nations obviously cares about us military power it's use it as a critical part of their defense strategy. This is such a strange comment to read during a hot war in Ukraine when many countries are trying to join NATO
If it wasn't for Russia, the whole of EU would probably have dissolved NATO and dismantled its armies.
Everybody's gangsta like they don't live near Russia until Trump is threatening to withdraw the US from NATO, then suddenly it's "how dare the United States not freely pledge its nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and the rest of its military to protect us in Europe on its own dime even though we refuse to spend even a base amount on our own defense, we literally can't even!"
Imagine fucking up Afghanistan (and Iraq and Vietnam etc etc) so amazingly hard yet still saying this lol.
However badly the US fucked up the three invasions you mentioned, it was way worse for the people in those countries - so sorry, but it's an irrelevant objection. I'm not implying that US politics are rational, just that it projects a credible threat. It's geopolitics 101.
I don't like us interventionist foreign policy, but the fact remains that Europe and the EU benefit greatly from the US Military and it's Global power projection
OpenAI finds it worthwhile. So I guess they are working out pretty well.
This seems to be an inferiority on Google’s part and they couldn’t work out support at launch. I expect they will eventually add support, they’re just lagging a bit. It’s not some value judgement.
This seems to be an inferiority on Google’s part and they couldn’t work out support at launch. I expect they will eventually add support, they’re just lagging a bit. It’s not some value judgement.
There’s a value judgment in the business-value sense. Once there’s meaningful revenue from it, or similar, it’s far more likely to be made available there. Until then it’s a business risk and a compliance-auditing expense for nothing.
Also a value judgment: the Europeans in this discussion who are confident it’s a sign Google is treacherous.
Also a value judgment: the Europeans in this discussion who are confident it’s a sign Google is treacherous.
> OpenAI finds it worthwhile. So I guess they are working out pretty well.
The trade-off is pretty different for OpenAI because the maximum penalty for violating the GDPR is 4% of worldwide annual revenue. Google has a lot of revenue, from unrelated projects, and it makes sense to me that they would be reluctant to risk that on Bard. OpenAI doesn't, so the threat is effectively far smaller for them.
The trade-off is pretty different for OpenAI because the maximum penalty for violating the GDPR is 4% of worldwide annual revenue. Google has a lot of revenue, from unrelated projects, and it makes sense to me that they would be reluctant to risk that on Bard. OpenAI doesn't, so the threat is effectively far smaller for them.
OpenAI also hasn't been fined repeatedly yet.
once they have a few billion on the bank it will happen.
GDPR fines are based on revenue, not assets. But to an extent this is correct; big companies are much more scared of the GDPR than small companies just because the amounts involved get so huge.
Listen, I agree with you that the web cookie stuff is a pain in the ass, but I'm all on board requiring user's informed consent about what you do with their data. It's Google that's being a little bit evil here.
So now not even going to the party is evil?
If Google is going so far as to avoid the European market, then I assume that they are not doing informed consent here, and I would consider that a little bit evil.
Yes, why have any nuance in our speech. Should just go all the way though and say Google is Hitler. No reason to stop at evil if we are being hyperbolic.
> can’t have them and also simultaneously expect everyone is going to find it worthwhile
wait do people think Google is going to forfeit the 20 trillion European market instead of just making some angry noises, adjustments and going live in Europe a month later?
wait do people think Google is going to forfeit the 20 trillion European market instead of just making some angry noises, adjustments and going live in Europe a month later?
I mean, the fact that some European commentators are so outraged over a few years’, maybe even just months’ delay because of efforts invested complying with the law… that’s part of the silliness here as well. “How dare our laws have costs that we bear! The rest of the world that should put us first and bear them for us!!”
There won’t even be angry noises.
(Although calling it a “$20T market” isn’t that informative when we’re just talking about a new unproven product without any obvious revenue itself that distracts from your main revenue product.)
There won’t even be angry noises.
(Although calling it a “$20T market” isn’t that informative when we’re just talking about a new unproven product without any obvious revenue itself that distracts from your main revenue product.)
Interestingly, if you use Bard, there are buttons that direct people to use the Google search engine to find out more information about subjects. Google has a problem that their search results absolutely suck nowadays, though. One of the worst search features on any website is on YouTube which is owned by Google. They seem to value revenue generation techniques more than functionality, but it is going to eventually bite them. We are seeing that now with many people finding better results using Bing or by simply asking ChatGPT.
Well, Google clearly want to be in Europe. Lot of money to make. What is happening here is that they don’t find it worthwhile to wait until complying with all EU’s regulations when rolling out their latest innovation. The opportunity cost may be too high. It may happen more in the future as well.
Why European people here feel so upset about it? You should celebrate the fact that Google or big tech can’t ignore your laws, and because of that decide not to launch —- or delay to launch —- their products despite the financial potential. That’s the trade off that I thought you’d been happy to make.
Why European people here feel so upset about it? You should celebrate the fact that Google or big tech can’t ignore your laws, and because of that decide not to launch —- or delay to launch —- their products despite the financial potential. That’s the trade off that I thought you’d been happy to make.
"You just can’t have them and also simultaneously expect everyone is going to find it worthwhile to deal with you under such laws"
Actually, we totally can. I can guarantee you that Bard will become available in the EU at one point.
Actually, we totally can. I can guarantee you that Bard will become available in the EU at one point.
Even in the US, we should all be scared that Google is attempting to strong arm the EU. It means less privacy for all of us.
Fine. Keep GPT, Twitter, Meta or any other toxic social media inside US borders. Zero problem here.
VWWHFSfQ(8)
That's kind of a stretch when Bard has been barely relevant since its launch.
It's somewhere between a 7B and 13B for most tasks, which can be run on a cellphone now, and we were already able to run better models locally on commodity hardware. Model complexity and capability are improving so quickly that there's no feasible way for Google to respond.
Sure, Google don't want to look like they're late to a party and under-dressed, but Meta just got a decade of advancement for free in three months with the LLaMa leak. They're looking for anything they can say to sound like they're making progress.
Benchmark this stuff yourself. Use logic problems, have the local model talk through them, and if it doesn't understand what to do, you'll be shocked how a single hint or seed change can lead it to a solution. You can even ask them to generate contexts for themselves that would help them solve those types of problem in the future, which work incredibly well.
Combined with arbitrary length context and long term memory projects, finetuning almost isn't necessary with sufficiently large models. It's really exciting.
It's somewhere between a 7B and 13B for most tasks, which can be run on a cellphone now, and we were already able to run better models locally on commodity hardware. Model complexity and capability are improving so quickly that there's no feasible way for Google to respond.
Sure, Google don't want to look like they're late to a party and under-dressed, but Meta just got a decade of advancement for free in three months with the LLaMa leak. They're looking for anything they can say to sound like they're making progress.
Benchmark this stuff yourself. Use logic problems, have the local model talk through them, and if it doesn't understand what to do, you'll be shocked how a single hint or seed change can lead it to a solution. You can even ask them to generate contexts for themselves that would help them solve those types of problem in the future, which work incredibly well.
Combined with arbitrary length context and long term memory projects, finetuning almost isn't necessary with sufficiently large models. It's really exciting.
I don't see why "western civilization" should be a relevant category for a technology release. You're leaving the EU out, yes, and that's relevant in itself. I don't get why leaving X% of western civilization or not would add anything to it.
(Btw, I consider latinamerica to be mostly part of western civilization...eastern europe too, so the EU is much less than 50%. However, people that care about the term usually prefer to exclude non white people for some reason)
(Btw, I consider latinamerica to be mostly part of western civilization...eastern europe too, so the EU is much less than 50%. However, people that care about the term usually prefer to exclude non white people for some reason)
I do not think it's remotely fair to Google to be angry at them for following EU laws.
If they did follow EU laws, Bard would be available there…
Why so?
I worded my previous message poorly, but I would say that keeping a product out of a market, for what I assume are legal reasons, is the opposite of following the law. Anyway, sorry for this–I should stop arguing about semantics.
Not following the law would be releasing without privacy compliance and trying to make money off it. Blocking the EU is following the law.
> …keeping a product out of a market, for what I assume are legal reasons, is the opposite of following the law.
That the exact definition of following the law.
That the exact definition of following the law.
Because it’s a large market and Google has a commercial incentive to make their offers available where they can legally do so.
Do you think they are doing this without commercial incentive in mind? I'm fairly confident they are, and they just decided the costs were not worth it in this case.
Google would be profitable even without the entirety of the EU, and I think their decision to continue using practices (elsewhere) that the EU does not allow, probably means that the profit gained from such practices far outweighs the effort of complying with EU + any profit gained from EU users themselves.
I think the anger actually comes from users upset that Google did not design their product in such a way that it complies with EU laws so that it can be used there.
Are you being sarcastic or trolling?
Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region, which is rather different to "following" it - and if indicating an intentional direction, pretty much a disgrace for a flagship tech company - so let's hope it's just temporary poor performance (or charitably, a staggered release) unrepresentative of their intentions going forward.
Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region, which is rather different to "following" it - and if indicating an intentional direction, pretty much a disgrace for a flagship tech company - so let's hope it's just temporary poor performance (or charitably, a staggered release) unrepresentative of their intentions going forward.
> Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region
The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement".
A key difference here. Google is following the law. They are not implementing the standard that the EU requires because that standard requires overhead.
Google has probably just done the math and realized the effort isn't worth the reward. They'll probably change that once things exit beta.
And if they don't, that's likely the EUs fault more than it is Google. Google isn't just banning the EU for fun, they want that extra reach and money for sure.
The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement".
A key difference here. Google is following the law. They are not implementing the standard that the EU requires because that standard requires overhead.
Google has probably just done the math and realized the effort isn't worth the reward. They'll probably change that once things exit beta.
And if they don't, that's likely the EUs fault more than it is Google. Google isn't just banning the EU for fun, they want that extra reach and money for sure.
The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement"
That's not for Google to decide. Google is a worldwide corporation, not some SV start-up dipping its toe in the water that is only expected to serve a tiny legislative region.
The absurdity of the perspective that they can pick and choose laws to approve should become clear if you change EU-conformance with US.
I'm guessing that this is a temporary situation and Google should clarify that as soon as possible to avoid looking arrogant or incompetent.
That's not for Google to decide. Google is a worldwide corporation, not some SV start-up dipping its toe in the water that is only expected to serve a tiny legislative region.
The absurdity of the perspective that they can pick and choose laws to approve should become clear if you change EU-conformance with US.
I'm guessing that this is a temporary situation and Google should clarify that as soon as possible to avoid looking arrogant or incompetent.
> That's not for Google to decide.
It is explicitly for Google to decide.
Not releasing a product in the EU is well within their right to do, and if the EU begins to demand not only regulation but also that all products are released equally they'll be holding back the entire world and Google should have the EU entirely.
It is explicitly for Google to decide.
Not releasing a product in the EU is well within their right to do, and if the EU begins to demand not only regulation but also that all products are released equally they'll be holding back the entire world and Google should have the EU entirely.
It's entirely within Google's rights to decide they don't want to be a worldwide corporation anymore if they find it's unprofitable to continue being one!
The law says "if you want to operate in the EU, you must do X." Google looked at that equation and said they didn't want to do X, so they didn't roll out Bard in the EU. That's in full compliance with the law, no different than PornHub blocking Utah. If you don't like it, talk to your representatives.
I think what people in this thread are really frustrated with is that for a long time the US has been imposing its laws on other countries quite successfully. International corporations have generally found it worthwhile to comply with US law in order to operate there, and people were hoping that the same would be true of the EU. When it turns out that for some companies it hasn't been, it seems unfair.
The law says "if you want to operate in the EU, you must do X." Google looked at that equation and said they didn't want to do X, so they didn't roll out Bard in the EU. That's in full compliance with the law, no different than PornHub blocking Utah. If you don't like it, talk to your representatives.
I think what people in this thread are really frustrated with is that for a long time the US has been imposing its laws on other countries quite successfully. International corporations have generally found it worthwhile to comply with US law in order to operate there, and people were hoping that the same would be true of the EU. When it turns out that for some companies it hasn't been, it seems unfair.
So Google is so big that they have to offer all their services in the EU in a way that's compliant with EU laws? They can't simply choose not to offer services that may run afoul of regulations? If some large manufacturer has products not compliant with EU regulations, they're similarly also not allowed to restrict the markets where their products are sold?
Google is a US company, that's why they have to obey US laws. Companies don't pick and choose which laws to approve, they pick and choose where to do business.
The parochial "US company/US customers/US laws" argument here and elsewhere in the thread has already been addressed.
It's a long time since Google has been merely American, its on everybody's desktop and phone and is a huge multinational that is part of everybody's culture.
It's a long time since Google has been merely American, its on everybody's desktop and phone and is a huge multinational that is part of everybody's culture.
They’re complying by not offering the product. Makes sense to me.
It’s a free product. Any effort spent making it compliant is an expense not paid for. Any non compliance is a business risk, with a percent of global revenue at stake. Why take that risk for no benefit?
Maybe once they have a revenue model for it and find it profitable things will change. Until then the GDPR is not the essence of all that is good in the world such that only the wicked heathens would dare not pay it homage. That’s imperialistic moralizing of the sort which at this point belongs in the dustbin of history along with Europe’s other collective efforts in the area.
It’s a free product. Any effort spent making it compliant is an expense not paid for. Any non compliance is a business risk, with a percent of global revenue at stake. Why take that risk for no benefit?
Maybe once they have a revenue model for it and find it profitable things will change. Until then the GDPR is not the essence of all that is good in the world such that only the wicked heathens would dare not pay it homage. That’s imperialistic moralizing of the sort which at this point belongs in the dustbin of history along with Europe’s other collective efforts in the area.
This makes complete sense to me. Amazing that a company is getting criticism for not making a product available. One thing I’ve learned from HN over the years is that people are going to be mad and criticize you regardless of what you do, so just do what you want anyway and ignore the criticism.
I really don’t like the way a lot of big corporations are handling things recently (especially with regard to layoffs and RTO), but I’m also not surprised that overly critical feedback by anonymous commenters on HN has little effect on changing people’s minds.
I really don’t like the way a lot of big corporations are handling things recently (especially with regard to layoffs and RTO), but I’m also not surprised that overly critical feedback by anonymous commenters on HN has little effect on changing people’s minds.
There is this very strong thread here that a large US company has some moral imperative to offer a (free for now) product/service in the EU by people who presumably would not make the same case for China, much less Russia.
The appropriate reaction is probably the same as if you hear that a brand of snacks is not legal to sell as food in the EU. You probably want to investigate.
EU is many things and has some wacky laws (check Northern Ireland), but if a digital service is breaking EU law, they are likely doing something you do not want them to do.
EU is many things and has some wacky laws (check Northern Ireland), but if a digital service is breaking EU law, they are likely doing something you do not want them to do.
There are lots of agricultural goods not available in the states that are available in Europe, and vice versa. Few people take that as a signal that there is some danger in those products (well, except those chocolate eggs with toys in them), it’s just different places having different rules.
I can assure you that most Europeans think the reason US meat is not for sale here is because it is unfit for consumption: look at the debate in the UK around “chlorinated chicken” just after Brexit, or hormone beef. For most processed food, the (founded) assumption is that it’s full of HCFS.
No, the imperialistic moralising is thinking a corporation gets to make the rules over democratic institutions.
If you consistently fine a company for breaking your rules, you can't then demand access to their products that might break your rules.
Maybe they shouldn't break the rules instead?
The EU is not within their right to regulate products made by Americans companies sold to Americans. If we want to talk imperialism, this is exactly that sort of overreach.
That's a related but different point to here, it's not a counter argument.
There are a couple ways to do that. One is by not offering the product.
How do you reason? Google decided to follow the EU rules by not offering the service there.
I live it the EU.
No it is not malignant. The west needs to realize it is not the center of the world.
China and India alone (given the population and economic growth trajectory) plus the US (given it's economic clout) are the critical markets a for-profit enterprise needs to target.
No it is not malignant. The west needs to realize it is not the center of the world.
China and India alone (given the population and economic growth trajectory) plus the US (given it's economic clout) are the critical markets a for-profit enterprise needs to target.
Doesn't the EU have more than 5x the GDP of India? Why would you expect anyone to prioritize India above the EU?
I've given my reasons above.
Today, India enjoys a population dividend (compared vs. China) and an unparalleled growth trajectory (vs. EU / USA).
Large enough businesses invest in the future, with 5-15 year timeframes.
Today, India enjoys a population dividend (compared vs. China) and an unparalleled growth trajectory (vs. EU / USA).
Large enough businesses invest in the future, with 5-15 year timeframes.
Times are changing Sean (@seanmcdirmid)
> India has emerged as one of the most attractive destinations not only for investments but also for doing business. India jumps 79 positions from 142nd (2014) to 63rd (2019) in 'World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Ranking 2020'.
https://indianembassynetherlands.gov.in/page/ease-of-doing-b...
> India has emerged as one of the most attractive destinations not only for investments but also for doing business. India jumps 79 positions from 142nd (2014) to 63rd (2019) in 'World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Ranking 2020'.
https://indianembassynetherlands.gov.in/page/ease-of-doing-b...
India is a difficult place for foreign companies to do business, so investment opportunities are limited.
Come on, why are you defending a misleading marketing tactic. Any American company that announces in English it "launches in 180 countries" tends to imply the G20 is in it.
To say that someone is implying something that's false implies that they are misleading on purpose. And I just don't see that here. Yes, there was a time when one might have assumed that if a product is launched in 180 countries it includes the G20. I guess that's not the case anymore.
I'm sorry it IS misleading on purpose, Google's previous product roll out for 180 countries have included the UE.
Unless they have a statement about the why/how, it's still considered misleading. Hard to prove in court that it's misleading to investors but easy enough to ask around to any consumer on the planet and get the same understanding.
Don’t people just assume that new tech isn’t going to appear in EU for a while, if ever? Does it need to be said with each release?
We aren't EU any more (UK), but even when we were, the UK seemed to get first-dibs on most new tech releases after the US, and more often than not at the same time as.
And the UK has essentially identical laws relating to data protection right now, so it's weird that Google were OK to launch there, but not the EU.
What entitlement! What justifies this? What is so special about europe?
Why malignant? It's presumably still that number of countries, and its not like there is anything special about "western civilization." There is still a whole lot of planet outside of Europe!
Except when it comes to profit, there may be something special about western civilization
Western civilization was a figure speech
As if overly specific semi-truths are anything new in marketing speak. :)
[deleted]
Germany was explicitly included in the 180+ countries list, so we will see.
I can't see it in here: https://support.google.com/bard/answer/13575153?hl=en&sjid=1...
"it's outright malignant"
Reminds me of 'when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.'
Reminds me of 'when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.'
I wonder if they omitted the explanation -- ie, how exactly it violates GDPR -- since it might get others in trouble (notably ChatGPT).
They can map the Moon and Mars, but the back ancient maps of Mordor, don't extend towards Europe, the lands on ancient alchemists. :-)
Interestingly you can use Bard in Åland Islands, which is part of Finland, which is part of EU. They should have googled Åland Islands.
That also tells us they didn't actually check for every place on their list whether Bard was compliant with local law – they're simply assuming that some small island country's regulators have no power over them.
Åland is squarely part of the European Union. (It’s also never really claimed to be a country, more a cultural exception within a de-colonization effort and a tax loophole.)
The relevant regulator if Google infringes the privacy of someone there would be the central EU authorities.
The relevant regulator if Google infringes the privacy of someone there would be the central EU authorities.
Indeed, and even the most cursory legal review should have immediately caught that, so probably there was none, and not for the rest of the list either.
For anyone wondering how Google could make that mistake:
- Talk to your data engineers more often: they knew that would happen and they need your shoulder to cry on. Don’t mention “disputed territories” and time zones unless they feel in a safe place.
- Several places are not fully independent countries but are somewhat sovereign. They tend to be listed in lists of ‘countries,’ which is really a list of *‘polities’*. “Polities” include distinctions like the Åland Islands being distinct from mainland Finland. Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily are often not on those lists, despite all having a solid national identity, so those are not always great lists of polities either. And those lists often include military and scientific bases afar, like Antarctic bases and the International Space Station, so… There’s no clear name for it. Essentially, it’s a list of what comes out of a GeoIP lookup.
Like Åland, French Polynesia, French Guyana, Reunion Island, both Saint-Martins (French and Dutch), Azores, and Greenland are all polities with very interesting statuses around the EU. Staying “near” the EU, some scientific bases and areas with hardly any population on that list of polities, too: Kerguelen, French Austral Territory, Tristan de Cunha, etc. Those are more curiosities to give content fodder for Wendover Production and administrative exams than actual legal risks for Google, but I thought I’d pile up, to help you develop empathy for Data engineers building privacy filters.
The point is: there is no “mainland Finland” in the list of polities: just “Finland — FI” one of 27 members of the EU. “French Polynesia - FP”, “French Guyana - FG” and all the others mentioned above are not on that list of 27 country codes either. Therefore, any territory in the EU but listed as a polity might get excluded from hastily configured EU filters, like what Google seems to have made. I would assume that GPDR does apply to most of the places I mentioned, making the mistake that Google made common among all those edge cases.
rikkuri, you are not alone.
France seems to be being most of those headaches. However, both the US (with Porto Rico, Guam, and more) and the UK are impressive specialists in confusing sovereignty): the Faroe Islands, the Isle of Man, Guernsey, and Jersey all used to be somehow in the EU, but not when the UK was in. Northern Ireland is probably the most heated situation of all those. I will not go into the nightmare that is deciding between UK, or GB, or one of EN, SC, WA, and NI.
Andorra, Monaco, Vatican, San Marino, and Liechtenstein are generally considered outside, or “observers,” of the EU but in the EEA (those countries plus Norway). Pro-tip: EEA is de facto the relevant grouping in most cases.
More importantly, all those places plus many rather large actual countries (Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea, and Argentina) have privacy rules that are equivalent to the EU’s and have been granted “adequacy” status. I’d expect all those need to be excluded from Bard for the same reason but many are not… Curious.
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/i... to be
Overall, that makes a much longer and more complicated list than 27 country codes.
- Talk to your data engineers more often: they knew that would happen and they need your shoulder to cry on. Don’t mention “disputed territories” and time zones unless they feel in a safe place.
- Several places are not fully independent countries but are somewhat sovereign. They tend to be listed in lists of ‘countries,’ which is really a list of *‘polities’*. “Polities” include distinctions like the Åland Islands being distinct from mainland Finland. Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily are often not on those lists, despite all having a solid national identity, so those are not always great lists of polities either. And those lists often include military and scientific bases afar, like Antarctic bases and the International Space Station, so… There’s no clear name for it. Essentially, it’s a list of what comes out of a GeoIP lookup.
Like Åland, French Polynesia, French Guyana, Reunion Island, both Saint-Martins (French and Dutch), Azores, and Greenland are all polities with very interesting statuses around the EU. Staying “near” the EU, some scientific bases and areas with hardly any population on that list of polities, too: Kerguelen, French Austral Territory, Tristan de Cunha, etc. Those are more curiosities to give content fodder for Wendover Production and administrative exams than actual legal risks for Google, but I thought I’d pile up, to help you develop empathy for Data engineers building privacy filters.
The point is: there is no “mainland Finland” in the list of polities: just “Finland — FI” one of 27 members of the EU. “French Polynesia - FP”, “French Guyana - FG” and all the others mentioned above are not on that list of 27 country codes either. Therefore, any territory in the EU but listed as a polity might get excluded from hastily configured EU filters, like what Google seems to have made. I would assume that GPDR does apply to most of the places I mentioned, making the mistake that Google made common among all those edge cases.
rikkuri, you are not alone.
France seems to be being most of those headaches. However, both the US (with Porto Rico, Guam, and more) and the UK are impressive specialists in confusing sovereignty): the Faroe Islands, the Isle of Man, Guernsey, and Jersey all used to be somehow in the EU, but not when the UK was in. Northern Ireland is probably the most heated situation of all those. I will not go into the nightmare that is deciding between UK, or GB, or one of EN, SC, WA, and NI.
Andorra, Monaco, Vatican, San Marino, and Liechtenstein are generally considered outside, or “observers,” of the EU but in the EEA (those countries plus Norway). Pro-tip: EEA is de facto the relevant grouping in most cases.
More importantly, all those places plus many rather large actual countries (Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea, and Argentina) have privacy rules that are equivalent to the EU’s and have been granted “adequacy” status. I’d expect all those need to be excluded from Bard for the same reason but many are not… Curious.
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/i... to be
Overall, that makes a much longer and more complicated list than 27 country codes.
> the Faroe Islands
Are part of Denmark, not the UK. The other ones you mentioned are essentially part of the UK (I'm too lazy right now to look up the official terminology in the UK is for them).
Are part of Denmark, not the UK. The other ones you mentioned are essentially part of the UK (I'm too lazy right now to look up the official terminology in the UK is for them).
I’ll let you deal with the threats from Faroese that you dare not respect their autonomy and/or independence, but — Yes, you are right: I picked the wrong crown that they are not controlled by.
I can’t remember: they are not part of the EEA, somehow, right?
Guernsey, Jersey, Man and Gibraltar (how could I forget the already overlooked victim of Brexit) are “Crown dependencies,” i.e., like dozens of countries, King Charles III is nominally the sovereign, but it’s somewhat closer. The main difference with say Jamaica or New Zealand is that were attached to the EU, and their passport is de facto a British passport (and used to be de facto an EU passport), but it didn’t say so on the booklet itself. They just had exceptions in the fine print of each international treaty. All have exceptions carved for the weirdest thing, like who is allowed duty-free alcohol on boats to and from…
I can’t remember: they are not part of the EEA, somehow, right?
Guernsey, Jersey, Man and Gibraltar (how could I forget the already overlooked victim of Brexit) are “Crown dependencies,” i.e., like dozens of countries, King Charles III is nominally the sovereign, but it’s somewhat closer. The main difference with say Jamaica or New Zealand is that were attached to the EU, and their passport is de facto a British passport (and used to be de facto an EU passport), but it didn’t say so on the booklet itself. They just had exceptions in the fine print of each international treaty. All have exceptions carved for the weirdest thing, like who is allowed duty-free alcohol on boats to and from…
This is the most informative yet entertaining rant outside of a Wendover Production I have encountered in a while. You had me at "safe space". Well done!
Excluding the EU and Canada tell us quickly this is something you want to stay away from. Canada has some of the worst privacy laws if bard is worried about them this might be a sign that your privacy will be violated in ways unseen before. Good luck bard users.. the adults have left the room
Honestly, blocked countries are not losing out. I can't believe how behind Google is on all this. Bard in its current incarnation is a disaster. Pretty much all replies are hallucinations. Looks like Google really was caught pants down with with ChatGPT.
EU citizens, you may be confused that you have been rejected. But isn't that what your government and the bureaucrats in Brussels have brought on themselves? As a Korean citizen, I have no complaints.
Imagine someone invents very delicious but carcinogenic sauce. EU will be rejected from its sales too. We just don’t need crap.
Sooner or later we will have a similar tool that respects privacy.
Sooner or later we will have a similar tool that respects privacy.
[deleted]
Didn't Korea just pass more data protection laws similar to the GDPR earlier this year?
Google Bard is blocked in all of continental Europe, EU status notwithstanding.
It is also blocked in:
- Serbia
- Switzerland
- Bosnia
- North Macedonia
- Norway
- Ukraine
And surely there are a couple of others I'm missing.
I struggle to see a reason as to why it's not available in, e.g., Serbia, where their legal risk is surely very low.
It is also blocked in:
- Serbia
- Switzerland
- Bosnia
- North Macedonia
- Norway
- Ukraine
And surely there are a couple of others I'm missing.
I struggle to see a reason as to why it's not available in, e.g., Serbia, where their legal risk is surely very low.
All of these besides Norway (Norway is, as an EEA state, subject to the GDPR) and Switzerland (whose relationship to the GDPR would be "it's complicated" on its Facebook page) are EU accession candidate states, so at least in principle should be moving closer to EU law.
Google Bard? More like Google barred, amiright?
What a great way to compete against chatGPT, which just recently got the OK of the Italian "dept. of privacy".
I hope this thing doesn't make it ever to EU.
I hope this thing doesn't make it ever to EU.
[deleted]
So they give up the largest market in the world (European countries combined) to their competitors right from the start. Smart move :-)
Europe stopped being the largest market a few years ago.
I’m 2021, the eu gdp was US$17.2T [0]. I think that makes them #3 after China at $17.7[1] and the US at $23.2 [2].
So it’s not that odd that Google and others would prioritize other, larger markets above EU. But still seems pretty bone headed of google to not be capable of including such massive populations and markets at launch. Perhaps they could have used some of those 13k fired workers on this launch.
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/EUU/european-union/gdp... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=china+gdp [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=us+gdp
I’m 2021, the eu gdp was US$17.2T [0]. I think that makes them #3 after China at $17.7[1] and the US at $23.2 [2].
So it’s not that odd that Google and others would prioritize other, larger markets above EU. But still seems pretty bone headed of google to not be capable of including such massive populations and markets at launch. Perhaps they could have used some of those 13k fired workers on this launch.
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/EUU/european-union/gdp... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=china+gdp [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=us+gdp
GDP is not market.
EU's consumer market is bigger than China and India combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke...
EU's consumer market is bigger than China and India combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke...
I see the tiny little insignificant UK is actually 20% of the whole EU, who boast of having a 440 million population.
My intuition is that it's also quit a fragmented market with many different languages, cultures and local regulations.
Thanks, good point. So the EU really isn’t the biggest market then. I’m surprised it’s half the size of the US.
But it explains why products don’t target Europe as much as while it’s big, it is clearly simple why a company would target the US with its single language and more uniform culture than Europe with all its diverse languages and cultures.
But it explains why products don’t target Europe as much as while it’s big, it is clearly simple why a company would target the US with its single language and more uniform culture than Europe with all its diverse languages and cultures.
I would suggest that EU should produce it's own AI company to compete at that scale in their own market but we all know that's not going to happen. Just get angry they can't access the American companies technology anymore.
Remember Quaero? [0] Back when Europe (really just France and Germany) tried to make their own google competitor to prevent English language dominance? They spent at least $99M and really did nothing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero
No, they just release it later. According to Google, they want more localization before they release it in the not yet supported countries. Which might be culture, but could also mean abiding by laws and regulations.
EU ceased to be the largest market when the UK left
now it's number 3 or 4 (depending how you define market)
now it's number 3 or 4 (depending how you define market)
It's still number 2, we're talking about a consumer market, not a market.
both China and the US are both significantly bigger since Brexit
Depends how you count. China is significantly bigger if you use the methodology of a consumer market as "having people who spend more than $11 a day" or if you use PPP.
If you use "Household final consumption expenditure" then the EU is larger.
To chose the relevant definition of a "consumer market", usually what matters is where is the product made, the impact of distribution cost in the market and where are the profits going? For Alphabet, HFCE is the most relevant metric, because they're American and their product is software.
But sure, use a political definition that doesn't work for software.
To chose the relevant definition of a "consumer market", usually what matters is where is the product made, the impact of distribution cost in the market and where are the profits going? For Alphabet, HFCE is the most relevant metric, because they're American and their product is software.
But sure, use a political definition that doesn't work for software.
> Depends how you count.
the metric the EU itself used to describe itself as the world's largest economy
> But sure, use a political definition
nominal GDP, again, the metric the EU used itself
since the UK left the EU's nominal GDP is smaller than the US and China
the metric the EU itself used to describe itself as the world's largest economy
> But sure, use a political definition
nominal GDP, again, the metric the EU used itself
since the UK left the EU's nominal GDP is smaller than the US and China
> the metric the EU itself used to describe itself as the world's largest economy
I'm sorry but they don't describe themselves that way. When they did it was GPD/capita: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
Anyway you completely evaded the topic. We're talking about "consumer markets".
I'm sorry but they don't describe themselves that way. When they did it was GPD/capita: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
Anyway you completely evaded the topic. We're talking about "consumer markets".
So having largest "internal" market the EU still lacks in developing their own products. Smart move :-)
Because the EU isn't really a market (at least for consumer goods), it's dozens of markets. Despite no tariffs and (very) roughly aligned regulations, you've still got dozens of languages, norms, expectations, and income levels. Something developed and tested in Massachusetts will sell better in Wyoming than something developed and tested in Bulgaria will in Sweden.
Funnily enough, despite being part of the EU for decades and still having a comprehensive trade agreement with them, the UK's success in tech is probably more to do with being culturally closer to North America.
Funnily enough, despite being part of the EU for decades and still having a comprehensive trade agreement with them, the UK's success in tech is probably more to do with being culturally closer to North America.
Do Google's lawyers know something that Microsoft's lawyers don't? Or do they just have more to lose?
Google have felt the sharp end of EU regulations several times, at a cost measured in billions of Euros
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Goog...
Might be a lesson that OpenAI is yet to learn.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Goog...
Might be a lesson that OpenAI is yet to learn.
OpenAI already went through a cycle with the Italian authorities (with presumably the German regulator listening in too). The fix was very simple: give users the option not to have their queries used for training.
We are still pretty far from an anti-trust case, which is generally harder to navigate.
GPDR and other EU regulations on privacy and AI have fairly simple principles: if you do something that is not obvious or necessary (like fraud detection), ask for informed consent. Explain what you are doing, make your steps traceable, allow people to be excluded from non-trivial treatment, to delete the personal information they handed over. It makes some processes a little bit harder to set up, but it’s not really a hard lesson you can only learn by being sued for billions. It’s closer to data engineering 101.
We are still pretty far from an anti-trust case, which is generally harder to navigate.
GPDR and other EU regulations on privacy and AI have fairly simple principles: if you do something that is not obvious or necessary (like fraud detection), ask for informed consent. Explain what you are doing, make your steps traceable, allow people to be excluded from non-trivial treatment, to delete the personal information they handed over. It makes some processes a little bit harder to set up, but it’s not really a hard lesson you can only learn by being sued for billions. It’s closer to data engineering 101.
They are probably waiting to see what happens with Open AI's compliance of GDPR
EU people should force their governments and regulators to change their stance of overly-strict privacy laws, otherwise the whole world will take off leveraging AI tools whereas EU will not have (legally) access to anything.
First that’s not at all how the EU works. Second, we have access to other services, I don’t really see why we should lower our standard because Google doesn’t want to comply.
If they don’t want the EU market, that’s fine.
Why? I'm perfectly happy with the idea that some US tech monopolies think twice about doing their stuff here. That's the law working as intended.
And hopefully, that'll give some breathing room for EU companies grow and provide services that respect my rights.
And hopefully, that'll give some breathing room for EU companies grow and provide services that respect my rights.
1. What about non EU countries, where Bard is blocked too?
2. "Overly-strict privacy laws". Yeah, asking users about consent is definitely overly-strict regulation.
3. There is other AI models that works just fine in EU countries.
Wait, am I answering to sarcasm?
2. "Overly-strict privacy laws". Yeah, asking users about consent is definitely overly-strict regulation.
3. There is other AI models that works just fine in EU countries.
Wait, am I answering to sarcasm?
Why would there need to be this choice between either having privacy OR 'artificial intelligence'?
Does AI require invasion of privacy?
Does AI require invasion of privacy?
Shhh, let them do it.
"Hacker News is full of libertarians"
So what laws in Canada and the EU that are not on the books in the UK, US, India and Japan prevents Google from rolling this out?
Is there actual something substantial or is it performative on Google's part?
Is there actual something substantial or is it performative on Google's part?
Today I noticed there is no way to create a Google account without a creating a Gmail account. I remember it was possible.
At least ChatGpt gives an option to sign up with any email.
At least ChatGpt gives an option to sign up with any email.
I just checked and I see the option to use an existing email address (in Russia). It's available in the account creation form, as an option below the field that asks you what you want your GMail-address to be.
Might be A/B-testing though and you're in a group that doesn't have it available at the moment.
Might be A/B-testing though and you're in a group that doesn't have it available at the moment.
I’ve also recently been able to create a Google account with my own email domain, from Germany.
What's up with Canada?
It can't speak French Soni guess they can't launch or else Quebec will come after them? Maybe?
There's no Canadian or Quebecois law which requires American companies to serve their products in French.
Actually there are multitude of them in Quebec. https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2018/quebec-c...
Supporting Europe's "right to be forgotten" would require an 8-9 figure retraining run for each request.
I had to check and double check but I guess this is one tiny benefit of the UKs withdrawal from the EU I suppose (it's not blocked in the UK).
Maybe as similar to cookie controls, we will get fine grained acceptance forms, but what if it's only those in the EU that get that?
Maybe as similar to cookie controls, we will get fine grained acceptance forms, but what if it's only those in the EU that get that?
Well, I suppose that's one benefit of Brexit, isn't it? In all seriousness, it's a shame that the project is going to be restricted from a development standpoint, but, frankly, with Google's reputation for privacy violations and their former clashes with GDPR, this shouldn't be a surprise and, for quite a few people, will be a welcome piece of news.
The UK has retained almost all EU law, including GDPR. If GDPR is a problem in the EU, then why isn't it a problem in the UK given the law is identical?
UK courts work very differently.
So do Irish courts, and it's not available here.
I'm going to be charitable and assume they just need to make sure of GDPR compliance and didn't want to delay further.
Of course that's the reason, but the way it was delivered it's what makes it embarassing.
Lol so that’s why I can’t use it. I thought it strange that Norway wasn’t part of the 180 countries.
Goes to show how much Google values saving face over being honest with its users. Pathetic.
Goes to show how much Google values saving face over being honest with its users. Pathetic.
Maybe it's time to stop thinking that some countries are better then others and just treat them as different. Your sense of privilege with ,,lol'' means that you consider people in Norway more important than in other countries.
Maybe you shouldn’t reach so hard. I am not even from Norway. Couldn’t care less if they only released it in Uzbekistan.
It is a very valid strategy. If you do not have all the controls in place to comply with the burdensome requirements of the EU law (if that's the case), then why should you stop from releasing the service in other markets that do not impose such requirements?
A lot of comments here have a sense of entitlement that does not make too much sense to me, especially towards a private company doing a first release of a product. (PS: I live in the EU as well)
They should have used chatgpt to develop their controls. OpenAI figured out how to do it.
It’s weird when a company with Googles resources flubs their rollout. They have a main competitor. Their main competitor does something. They launch with not doing something. Typically, a company wants to launch with doing something better than their competitor.
It’s weird when a company with Googles resources flubs their rollout. They have a main competitor. Their main competitor does something. They launch with not doing something. Typically, a company wants to launch with doing something better than their competitor.
Just to clarify, I'm not commenting on whether it's a good strategy or not, or whether they are doing a great job or not. I just find it weird some comments in this topic accusing of being "malignant" or feeling like Google owes them to have released in the EU.
I guess they might just want to launch something as quick as possible as a response to OpenAI and Microsoft's partnership. And this knee-jerk reaction left them with gaps they haven't had the time to fix without being very late to the party. All speculation though.
I guess they might just want to launch something as quick as possible as a response to OpenAI and Microsoft's partnership. And this knee-jerk reaction left them with gaps they haven't had the time to fix without being very late to the party. All speculation though.
Maybe Google sees upcoming AI-related legislation in the EU? It looks better to have not entered a market in the first place than to remove a service later on.
GDPR still applies in the UK. Most EU law was kept intact when the UK left the EU. The only difference is that the UK courts enforce it, and it applies to UK citizens. Maybe the US doesn't care because the UK is a small market now :-)
When I asked Bard "What do you know about Edgar Allan Poe?" it answered "I'm a text-based AI and can't assist with that." Which I assumed was the result of an overzealous guardrail trying to protect personal private information. And now, when I see that Bard isn't available in the EU I'm starting to wonder if Google included in it's training data something they shouldn't have used.
I got the same. However when I asked Bard "What is the biography of the poet Edgar Allan Poe?" it gave me a full biography, looking suspiciously like it was cribbed from Wikipedia.
If someone builds a service on top of Bard (the way Phind is built on top of GPT-4), can they offer that in the EU?
nothing is stopping them, but they likely wouldn't be in compliance with the law
To be fair, a lot of Google services are not available in the EU.
What their disclaimer ought to say is "Bard is not available in countries that actually have consumer protections against blind data slurping."
I could test palm2 through Google Cloud and I am not impressed.
While I haven’t measured I feel that Vicuna13b is better. And chatGPT 4 is in another league.
While I haven’t measured I feel that Vicuna13b is better. And chatGPT 4 is in another league.
Quel dommage!
[deleted]
Not a good sign for Google’s AI endeavours and consumer privacy
...and Canada
The entitlement of some European citizens on this thread is mind boggling. Of course Google will eventually launch Bard in Europe but I really hope they decide not to now :)
I remember when GDPR rolled around, our entire company paused all product development for half a year to do "compliance work" that changed absolutely nothing material about the actual privacy approach, just bullshit compliance notices and moving privacy settings around, and rewording options. I have some resentment from that and was surprised by the company not choosing to stop doing business in EU altogether (I wish they did).
I remember when GDPR rolled around, our entire company paused all product development for half a year to do "compliance work" that changed absolutely nothing material about the actual privacy approach, just bullshit compliance notices and moving privacy settings around, and rewording options. I have some resentment from that and was surprised by the company not choosing to stop doing business in EU altogether (I wish they did).
Bit strange that uk is included. I was under the impression that there are gdpr like rules prevailing there too despite brexit
They are. I was going to say the UK's ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) are entirely impotent, however it appears they recently fined TikTok £12.7M for data misuse.
And nothing of value was lost. :)
If the GDPR is behind the block, as alleged in this article, blocking will not save them (from a legal perspective).
Do you have a source for this?
According to: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
> Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR.
According to: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
> Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR.
Well that is right there in the FAQ you posted, assuming that they're processing personal data of Europeans (which they presumably do).
[deleted]
https://twitter.com/thijser/status/1656943947556569090
Definitely not what I had expected with "180 countries"