3 ms·

> If the US and its companies want to force their moral and legal standards upon us, we will force our standards upon them, too. This is incredibly silly reaso

by cheald 11y ago

> If the US and its companies want to force their moral and legal standards upon us, we will force our standards upon them, too. This is incredibly silly reasoning. Google enforces the standards it chooses (generally American standards, in this case, as it is an American company) on its own properties. That's quite a far cry from imposing your own set of values on a third-party service provider. The equivalent would be to start your own service which imposes your own set of standards (which, I'll point out, exists in the form of DailyMotion and LiveLeak, among others), not to say "well if you get to apply your standards to your service then I get to apply my standards to your service."

kuschku 11y ago
I made the same point before, but: If a German company operates within Germany with German customers completely legal according to German law, and then gets fucked over by US institutions forcing US banks to seize the money of that company just because the actions (which happened solely under German law) were not according to US law... Then it is the exact same situation. If the US can dictate our companies laws, we can dictate their companies laws, too. The Euro was made also to reduce the influence of the dollar for international trade, and especially the countries within the EU have almost no contact with the dollar anymore, nor do most companies here. Which makes sure the US can’t just seize their assets (like they used to seize assets of companies because "if they trade in dollar, they operate under US law")
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  Except it's all based on trade agreements and negotiations. The US didn't agree to German drafted laws so they don't apply - if Germany didn't want them then they shouldn't have signed them. If the argument is that the German population doesn't want them, then that's an internal issue and not the US' problem, as we negotiate with state actors, not citizens.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    No, that's not the case: The trade agreements have a very limited scope, and the US oversteps those boundaries consistently. Our government in Germany ends up sending not even a strongly worded letter to the US because they don't want to risk the international relationship, but the official position is that these actions are illegal. It's just like the NSA affair. And the fact that in the Microsoft case a US judge stated that, even though the servers in question were in Europe, the US could seize them because the internet was a US invention and the company had made business in the US just shows the issue: the US legal enforcement consistently oversteps nations boundaries.

by cheald 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago

I made the same point before, but: If a German company operates within Germany with German customers completely legal according to German law, and then gets fucked over by US institutions forcing US banks to seize the money of that company just because the actions (which happened solely under German law) were not according to US law... Then it is the exact same situation. If the US can dictate our companies laws, we can dictate their companies laws, too. The Euro was made also to reduce the influence of the dollar for international trade, and especially the countries within the EU have almost no contact with the dollar anymore, nor do most companies here. Which makes sure the US can’t just seize their assets (like they used to seize assets of companies because "if they trade in dollar, they operate under US law")

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
Except it's all based on trade agreements and negotiations. The US didn't agree to German drafted laws so they don't apply - if Germany didn't want them then they shouldn't have signed them. If the argument is that the German population doesn't want them, then that's an internal issue and not the US' problem, as we negotiate with state actors, not citizens.
- kuschku 11y ago
  No, that's not the case: The trade agreements have a very limited scope, and the US oversteps those boundaries consistently. Our government in Germany ends up sending not even a strongly worded letter to the US because they don't want to risk the international relationship, but the official position is that these actions are illegal. It's just like the NSA affair. And the fact that in the Microsoft case a US judge stated that, even though the servers in question were in Europe, the US could seize them because the internet was a US invention and the company had made business in the US just shows the issue: the US legal enforcement consistently oversteps nations boundaries.