7 ms·

All of these companies do business in the EU, have offices and employees in the EU, etc. They are clearly subject to EU jurisdiction. They could shut down all

by s17n 9y ago

All of these companies do business in the EU, have offices and employees in the EU, etc. They are clearly subject to EU jurisdiction. They could shut down all their European operations, but that would cost them a lot more than 4% of revenue.

Silhouette 9y ago
They could shut down all their European operations, but that would cost them a lot more than 4% of revenue. There's an interesting assumption in there, and I'm not entirely sure it's a correct one. Facebook and its subsidiaries play a large part in many people's everyday lives now, in particular forming the main way a lot of people stay in touch with their friends and family. It is not at all clear to me what would happen if Facebook decided to call the EU's bluff here and literally switched off its service to everyone in the EU for a day or two, replacing it with a single page explaining that until the law was changed they would not be able to provide their service to EU customers.
- nl 9y ago
  We can see what happens in these circumstances based on when China blocked services. People stop using it as much. That seems particularly bad for Facebook, given the network effects it relies on.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    Counterpoint: When the Internet went "dark" over SOPA, people noticed, and SOPA died. If everyone in Europe woke up one morning next year to find Facebook saying that as a result of new EU law they had been required to turn off their service and please would everyone write to their representatives (using the form conveniently provided below) to ask why they'd done this, what do you think would happen?
    - FridgeSeal 9y ago
      For a lot of people, if not nearly all of them, it's a lot less effort to migrate to a new social network with your friends than it is to lobby to have some laws repealed, especially when it's clear that these laws are in the interest of the public and have been put together with serious thought and consultation.
    - devdas 9y ago
      Migrating to a new social network is harder as an individual than a group.
    - riffraff 9y ago
      I think the difference in perception would be huge. SOPA felt like a gift to Evil Media Corporations at the expense of The Internet People. If Facebook goes dark as a protest against GDDR, people are far more likely to side with the EU, than with the Evil Corporation That Avoids Taxes.
    - Oletros 9y ago
      > what do you think would happen? Facebook would disappear from the EU
- maneesh 9y ago
  What if they said 'sorry but -- starting next month, we will have to charge you for accessing parts of facebook. We will have to do this until the EU changes the law. I bet customers would rally against the law rather than pay microtransactions.
  - dx034 9y ago
    Or use a competitor who complies? Maybe Google+ would finally take off in the end? Don't underestimate how important privacy is to many Europeans. People are seriously worried about how their data is used.
    - RivieraKid 9y ago
      No, someone would create a copycat product. Hire a bunch of programmers and you can launch within a month or two. Extremely lucrative investment.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      Don't underestimate how important privacy is to many Europeans. People are seriously worried about how their data is used. Sadly, I think it's quite clear that most people are not that worried about it, even in Europe. Or at least, if they are, they're willing to put up with it for the convenience of the services they get in return. The real problems, IMHO, are a lack of awareness particularly among non-technical people of what is really happening and its implications, and a lack of competition so that those who do value their privacy more highly can choose to protect it without giving up normal parts of modern life.
- RivieraKid 9y ago
  Simple, someone else would take the market. In fact, I think it would benefit the EU over the long-term.
- Slartie 9y ago
  Laws don't change in a matter of one or two days. So if they did this shutdown with the argument being that they otherwise can't offer their service in a legal way, it would have to be a permanent shutdown (or at least on a scale of several months, until the law is changed), because everything else would effectively result in openly admitting that they are knowingly running an illegal service. If that happens, how long do you think it will take a bunch of companies to spin up replacements for Facebook? It's not exactly rocket science to create a social network application; most of the value of Facebook also does not lie in the platforms' code, but in the network effects that it managed to create. Thus, there would be a timeframe in which a huge number of new social networks would try to win over a critical amount of users, with one of them eventually emerging as the dominant one. As soon as that happened, Facebook would have quite a big problem in case they ever wanted to re-enter the European market, as it would suddenly have to compete with a big network with serious network effects keeping their users from re-joining Facebook, even if that was suddenly possible again. They would probably decide to shill out the largest sum of money ever to simply buy up this competitor, because otherwise there would be a certain risk of the new competitor eventually winning the global race for the dominant network (I assume that due to network effects there will always be a clear gravitation towards a single global general-purpose social network, as long as access to this network is not purposely blocked), and no matter how low this risk is, Facebook would most likely try to eliminate it (remember the large sums they paid to buy up possible dangers in the past). Other commenters already compared the situation with China; I think that is a pretty good comparison, just that the whole development/transition phase would happen much faster, now that it is pretty well known how the final product would have to look like to be accepted by the user.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    Laws don't change in a matter of one or two days. True enough, but assuming they decided to pull the stunt before the new laws came into effect, which isn't until the middle of next year, the real question is whether public opinion could be shifted in so little time. In most cases, I'd say that was extremely optimistic. However, in this case we're talking about a service used by probably a large majority of voters across Europe, often for considerable time every day and for communications and arrangements that matter to them personally. "If they don't change this, you'll lose Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp" is sure to get some people's attention, and all of those services going dark would probably make the front page of major news outlets. There would certainly be a lot of discussion; in fact, it might be a doubly effective move, because a lot of people would immediately then realise that without those services their main ways of telling their friends about something wasn't working. If that happens, how long do you think it will take a bunch of companies to spin up replacements for Facebook? [...] Thus, there would be a timeframe in which a huge number of new social networks would try to win over a critical amount of users, with one of them eventually emerging as the dominant one. I'm not sure that's how things would play out, if Facebook really did go offline permanently in Europe because of this. It would take vast resources to operate a social network on the scale of Facebook, but more importantly, before you could even start, the first thing you'd have to do is figure out how to comply with the same EU data protection rules and presumably then you'd also have to convince some serious investors that you could do it. If Facebook had already failed in that -- because obviously Facebook isn't just going to surrender the entire EU market and all its advertising revenue without a very good reason -- then why would we expect any new social network without all of Facebook's advantages to be able to comply if it was otherwise operating on the same basis, i.e., free to use but ad-supported?

by s17n 9y ago

Silhouette 9y ago

They could shut down all their European operations, but that would cost them a lot more than 4% of revenue. There's an interesting assumption in there, and I'm not entirely sure it's a correct one. Facebook and its subsidiaries play a large part in many people's everyday lives now, in particular forming the main way a lot of people stay in touch with their friends and family. It is not at all clear to me what would happen if Facebook decided to call the EU's bluff here and literally switched off its service to everyone in the EU for a day or two, replacing it with a single page explaining that until the law was changed they would not be able to provide their service to EU customers.

nl 9y ago
We can see what happens in these circumstances based on when China blocked services. People stop using it as much. That seems particularly bad for Facebook, given the network effects it relies on.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Counterpoint: When the Internet went "dark" over SOPA, people noticed, and SOPA died. If everyone in Europe woke up one morning next year to find Facebook saying that as a result of new EU law they had been required to turn off their service and please would everyone write to their representatives (using the form conveniently provided below) to ask why they'd done this, what do you think would happen?
  - FridgeSeal 9y ago
    For a lot of people, if not nearly all of them, it's a lot less effort to migrate to a new social network with your friends than it is to lobby to have some laws repealed, especially when it's clear that these laws are in the interest of the public and have been put together with serious thought and consultation.
  - devdas 9y ago
    Migrating to a new social network is harder as an individual than a group.
  - riffraff 9y ago
    I think the difference in perception would be huge. SOPA felt like a gift to Evil Media Corporations at the expense of The Internet People. If Facebook goes dark as a protest against GDDR, people are far more likely to side with the EU, than with the Evil Corporation That Avoids Taxes.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > what do you think would happen? Facebook would disappear from the EU
maneesh 9y ago
What if they said 'sorry but -- starting next month, we will have to charge you for accessing parts of facebook. We will have to do this until the EU changes the law. I bet customers would rally against the law rather than pay microtransactions.
- dx034 9y ago
  Or use a competitor who complies? Maybe Google+ would finally take off in the end? Don't underestimate how important privacy is to many Europeans. People are seriously worried about how their data is used.
  - RivieraKid 9y ago
    No, someone would create a copycat product. Hire a bunch of programmers and you can launch within a month or two. Extremely lucrative investment.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    Don't underestimate how important privacy is to many Europeans. People are seriously worried about how their data is used. Sadly, I think it's quite clear that most people are not that worried about it, even in Europe. Or at least, if they are, they're willing to put up with it for the convenience of the services they get in return. The real problems, IMHO, are a lack of awareness particularly among non-technical people of what is really happening and its implications, and a lack of competition so that those who do value their privacy more highly can choose to protect it without giving up normal parts of modern life.
RivieraKid 9y ago
Simple, someone else would take the market. In fact, I think it would benefit the EU over the long-term.
Slartie 9y ago
Laws don't change in a matter of one or two days. So if they did this shutdown with the argument being that they otherwise can't offer their service in a legal way, it would have to be a permanent shutdown (or at least on a scale of several months, until the law is changed), because everything else would effectively result in openly admitting that they are knowingly running an illegal service. If that happens, how long do you think it will take a bunch of companies to spin up replacements for Facebook? It's not exactly rocket science to create a social network application; most of the value of Facebook also does not lie in the platforms' code, but in the network effects that it managed to create. Thus, there would be a timeframe in which a huge number of new social networks would try to win over a critical amount of users, with one of them eventually emerging as the dominant one. As soon as that happened, Facebook would have quite a big problem in case they ever wanted to re-enter the European market, as it would suddenly have to compete with a big network with serious network effects keeping their users from re-joining Facebook, even if that was suddenly possible again. They would probably decide to shill out the largest sum of money ever to simply buy up this competitor, because otherwise there would be a certain risk of the new competitor eventually winning the global race for the dominant network (I assume that due to network effects there will always be a clear gravitation towards a single global general-purpose social network, as long as access to this network is not purposely blocked), and no matter how low this risk is, Facebook would most likely try to eliminate it (remember the large sums they paid to buy up possible dangers in the past). Other commenters already compared the situation with China; I think that is a pretty good comparison, just that the whole development/transition phase would happen much faster, now that it is pretty well known how the final product would have to look like to be accepted by the user.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Laws don't change in a matter of one or two days. True enough, but assuming they decided to pull the stunt before the new laws came into effect, which isn't until the middle of next year, the real question is whether public opinion could be shifted in so little time. In most cases, I'd say that was extremely optimistic. However, in this case we're talking about a service used by probably a large majority of voters across Europe, often for considerable time every day and for communications and arrangements that matter to them personally. "If they don't change this, you'll lose Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp" is sure to get some people's attention, and all of those services going dark would probably make the front page of major news outlets. There would certainly be a lot of discussion; in fact, it might be a doubly effective move, because a lot of people would immediately then realise that without those services their main ways of telling their friends about something wasn't working. If that happens, how long do you think it will take a bunch of companies to spin up replacements for Facebook? [...] Thus, there would be a timeframe in which a huge number of new social networks would try to win over a critical amount of users, with one of them eventually emerging as the dominant one. I'm not sure that's how things would play out, if Facebook really did go offline permanently in Europe because of this. It would take vast resources to operate a social network on the scale of Facebook, but more importantly, before you could even start, the first thing you'd have to do is figure out how to comply with the same EU data protection rules and presumably then you'd also have to convince some serious investors that you could do it. If Facebook had already failed in that -- because obviously Facebook isn't just going to surrender the entire EU market and all its advertising revenue without a very good reason -- then why would we expect any new social network without all of Facebook's advantages to be able to comply if it was otherwise operating on the same basis, i.e., free to use but ad-supported?