3 ms·

How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. When Europe says "we'll fix what's wrong with Google", do they w

How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. When Europe says "we'll fix what's wrong with Google", do they want to convert the last 10%? If not, then it has nothing to do with the people. You think democracy is what protects people against companies? How strange. If there's no demand for a lousy french dropbox-like service, and people use Dropbox instead, it's because the market will give people what they want: they chose Dropbox. Now pass a "democratic" law to ban Dropbox because it's not hosted in France, and all we're left with is the opposite of democracy. No choice anymore, and the best product is gone. Who's winning? The french dropbox-like with its new state-guaranteed monopoly. The people has lost. A french comic once said "So you're telling me the rich are bad, and the poor are good, and all these good people want to become the bad ones?"... I mean the french "dropbox-like" would love to be Dropbox. The french Uber like would love to be Uber. Exalead would love to be Google. But it's not the good vs. the evil. It's just a matter of performance... until the law comes into play, in less than democratic ways, to cut competition.

kuschku 11y ago
No, that’s the thing: A lot of european small companies don’t care much about growth. That’s the exact thing. And this mindset of "it works well enough" now meets with the US mindset of wasting resources, of eternal, aggressive growth, of pure capitalism. Obviously, that doesn't work well.
Riesling 11y ago
> How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. Regulations are not trying to fix "what is wrong with google". They are trying to keep the competition going, which ideally results in a better product for the consumers.
- weddpros 11y ago
  When dealing with privacy, they're definitely saying what's wrong. Right to be forgotten. Retribution of newspapers for headlines... That's not about competition. Not at all. Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them.
  - Riesling 11y ago
    Well, regarding privacy, google is in the wrong! They are collecting all the data they possible can and then transfer them to the U.S. where Europeans do not enjoy any right to privacy (which is considered a basic human right here). This is just trying to make a foreign company comply with European laws. I do not see a problem here. If the process was totally transparent (where does the data go, who uses the data) European citizens could make an informed decision. But this is not the case. It is totally intransparent. Who knows what the data is used for? The EU has the duty to protect its citizens. As for the retribution of newspaper headlines. This might be some form of protectionism. Calling Bing and Yahoo an alternative to google honors them. Just try them both exclusively for one week and see if you would really call them that.
  - M2Ys4U 11y ago
    >Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them. Whether they are a monopoly (or not) is not really relevant. Monopolies aren't even prohibited per se. But Google most certainly are in a dominant market position, and under EU competition law that means they must not abuse that dominant position.
parasubvert 11y ago
"How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants." No, that's not democracy, that's a free market. There's a big difference: democracy is about electing representatives to pursue your preferred policy goals. These goals may or may not support personal or economic freedom. One might want to use a service on the free market and at the same time want their elected representatives to constrain its competitive strength to enable local competition. Mainly this should be done in the interest of consumers or it gets too distortionary. I'm not claiming Google harms consumers, I'm just saying that (for example) Google has massive negative implications on privacy which are concerning. "Now pass a "democratic" law to ban Dropbox because it's not hosted in France, and all we're left with is the opposite of democracy. " Actually, no. What you're left with is a democratically elected government that is closing their trade market somewhat in favor of other interests. Note, nowhere did I suggest it was a good idea to ban a company from trading with a country. That would be a bad policy unless there was a very strong reason and popular support. Constraining behavior, on the other hand, might or might not be a bad policy. Hard to know. "It's just a matter of performance... until the law comes into play, in less than democratic ways, to cut competition." I agree the free market and free enterprise is all about performance and results, and the law doesn't care about such things. But that's why democracy exists - sometimes efficiency and performance is NOT what the populace wants. They want change and competition to be slowed by laws and regulations. People do not respond to change as quickly as the markets sometimes want them to. All of this are just policy differences between laissez-faire free market and more socialist policies. They have their tradeoffs but are both legitimate (one is not more "democratic" than the other).

kuschku 11y ago

No, that’s the thing: A lot of european small companies don’t care much about growth. That’s the exact thing. And this mindset of "it works well enough" now meets with the US mindset of wasting resources, of eternal, aggressive growth, of pure capitalism. Obviously, that doesn't work well.

Riesling 11y ago

> How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. Regulations are not trying to fix "what is wrong with google". They are trying to keep the competition going, which ideally results in a better product for the consumers.

weddpros 11y ago
When dealing with privacy, they're definitely saying what's wrong. Right to be forgotten. Retribution of newspapers for headlines... That's not about competition. Not at all. Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them.
- Riesling 11y ago
  Well, regarding privacy, google is in the wrong! They are collecting all the data they possible can and then transfer them to the U.S. where Europeans do not enjoy any right to privacy (which is considered a basic human right here). This is just trying to make a foreign company comply with European laws. I do not see a problem here. If the process was totally transparent (where does the data go, who uses the data) European citizens could make an informed decision. But this is not the case. It is totally intransparent. Who knows what the data is used for? The EU has the duty to protect its citizens. As for the retribution of newspaper headlines. This might be some form of protectionism. Calling Bing and Yahoo an alternative to google honors them. Just try them both exclusively for one week and see if you would really call them that.
- M2Ys4U 11y ago
  >Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them. Whether they are a monopoly (or not) is not really relevant. Monopolies aren't even prohibited per se. But Google most certainly are in a dominant market position, and under EU competition law that means they must not abuse that dominant position.

parasubvert 11y ago

"How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants." No, that's not democracy, that's a free market. There's a big difference: democracy is about electing representatives to pursue your preferred policy goals. These goals may or may not support personal or economic freedom. One might want to use a service on the free market and at the same time want their elected representatives to constrain its competitive strength to enable local competition. Mainly this should be done in the interest of consumers or it gets too distortionary. I'm not claiming Google harms consumers, I'm just saying that (for example) Google has massive negative implications on privacy which are concerning. "Now pass a "democratic" law to ban Dropbox because it's not hosted in France, and all we're left with is the opposite of democracy. " Actually, no. What you're left with is a democratically elected government that is closing their trade market somewhat in favor of other interests. Note, nowhere did I suggest it was a good idea to ban a company from trading with a country. That would be a bad policy unless there was a very strong reason and popular support. Constraining behavior, on the other hand, might or might not be a bad policy. Hard to know. "It's just a matter of performance... until the law comes into play, in less than democratic ways, to cut competition." I agree the free market and free enterprise is all about performance and results, and the law doesn't care about such things. But that's why democracy exists - sometimes efficiency and performance is NOT what the populace wants. They want change and competition to be slowed by laws and regulations. People do not respond to change as quickly as the markets sometimes want them to. All of this are just policy differences between laissez-faire free market and more socialist policies. They have their tradeoffs but are both legitimate (one is not more "democratic" than the other).