4 ms·

Honestly, I believe that the market is big enough to make it worth it anyway. But if they decide to leave, that could be a win-win. "Worst" case scenario, some

by kenoph 9y ago

Honestly, I believe that the market is big enough to make it worth it anyway. But if they decide to leave, that could be a win-win. "Worst" case scenario, some EU-based company replace them and becomes a tech giant. I mean, look at Yandex or VK in Russia. Facebook (the website) is not rocket science. As for Google, replacing it could take time, but in the long run it's good to destroy their monopoly in Europe.

kodablah 9y ago
> Honestly, I believe that the market is big enough to make it worth it anyway. Not for some of us just starting our companies. "Worst" case scenario is smaller players that would otherwise play globally will now not play in the EU market. I was told the other day, "don't worry about it if you don't have sensitive data." That misunderstands risk management. I have plenty of customer potential on this side of the pond, why even risk it until I am large and have saturated my pool? I plan on handling my data completely within the spirit of that law, I just don't want to risk it. Seems on risk alone, others will have to make the same decision as me. We're not losing out really (we can only grow so fast) but those in the EU that might want access to the global market, big or small, might be.
- kenoph 9y ago
  If smaller players do not want to comply with EU regulations, it's fine with me (I hope I got your point, but I'm not sure). If you want to do business in a place, you have to follow the local regulations. I don't see the problem there. I get that regulations make it more difficult for companies to enter a market, but if that means more protection for the user privacy (in this specific case), I cannot see how that could be a problem. The fact that the EU might have more data protection than, say, the US, could also be an added value to a service. Case in point: protonmail. It's not EU-based, but they use Swiss privacy regulations as a selling point. Some people are willing to pay more for that.
  - theptip 9y ago
    I think the point that the GP post is making (which I agree with) is not to complain about the burden of complying with local regs, but to point out that consumers in the EU are going to miss out if small companies don't offer their services there due to regulatory concerns. > I cannot see how that could be a problem. This is a cost/benefit calculation, but not an easy one. In general a given set of regulations will have both costs to the consumer such as reduced choice and increased prices (due to regulatory costs being passed through), and benefits such as better protection of personal information in this case. Now, the fact that users in the EU seem to currently be supportive of these regulations suggests that they are willing to pay that cost to get that benefit. And that's their decision! But consider the scenario where this trend carries on, and startups are increasingly not able to get a toehold due to incredibly high compliance costs. That could stifle the economic development in the EU, and lead to further concentration of power as only large companies can afford to pay the lawyer bills to meet the regulations.
    - kodablah 9y ago
      > I think the point that the GP post is making [...] Yup, that was the point. > And that's their decision Some at least. It's modern European federalism. The same people that the lawmakers believe aren't able to make their own decisions about which services are good or bad for them are, yet, able to determine that these regulations will be beneficial.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        > The same people that the lawmakers believe aren't able to make their own decisions about which services are good or bad for them are, yet, able to determine that these regulations will be beneficial. That's a valid argument in a perfectly transparent world with even negotiating power. But companies are opaque or change their handling of data (that one is the basis of this story!) and there's a race to the bottom where most options are severely lacking in privacy. And these regulations are a very minor impingement on free contract-making. You can still give up privacy, you just can't give it up irrevocably.

by kenoph 9y ago

kodablah 9y ago

> Honestly, I believe that the market is big enough to make it worth it anyway. Not for some of us just starting our companies. "Worst" case scenario is smaller players that would otherwise play globally will now not play in the EU market. I was told the other day, "don't worry about it if you don't have sensitive data." That misunderstands risk management. I have plenty of customer potential on this side of the pond, why even risk it until I am large and have saturated my pool? I plan on handling my data completely within the spirit of that law, I just don't want to risk it. Seems on risk alone, others will have to make the same decision as me. We're not losing out really (we can only grow so fast) but those in the EU that might want access to the global market, big or small, might be.

kenoph 9y ago
If smaller players do not want to comply with EU regulations, it's fine with me (I hope I got your point, but I'm not sure). If you want to do business in a place, you have to follow the local regulations. I don't see the problem there. I get that regulations make it more difficult for companies to enter a market, but if that means more protection for the user privacy (in this specific case), I cannot see how that could be a problem. The fact that the EU might have more data protection than, say, the US, could also be an added value to a service. Case in point: protonmail. It's not EU-based, but they use Swiss privacy regulations as a selling point. Some people are willing to pay more for that.
- theptip 9y ago
  I think the point that the GP post is making (which I agree with) is not to complain about the burden of complying with local regs, but to point out that consumers in the EU are going to miss out if small companies don't offer their services there due to regulatory concerns. > I cannot see how that could be a problem. This is a cost/benefit calculation, but not an easy one. In general a given set of regulations will have both costs to the consumer such as reduced choice and increased prices (due to regulatory costs being passed through), and benefits such as better protection of personal information in this case. Now, the fact that users in the EU seem to currently be supportive of these regulations suggests that they are willing to pay that cost to get that benefit. And that's their decision! But consider the scenario where this trend carries on, and startups are increasingly not able to get a toehold due to incredibly high compliance costs. That could stifle the economic development in the EU, and lead to further concentration of power as only large companies can afford to pay the lawyer bills to meet the regulations.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > I think the point that the GP post is making [...] Yup, that was the point. > And that's their decision Some at least. It's modern European federalism. The same people that the lawmakers believe aren't able to make their own decisions about which services are good or bad for them are, yet, able to determine that these regulations will be beneficial.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      > The same people that the lawmakers believe aren't able to make their own decisions about which services are good or bad for them are, yet, able to determine that these regulations will be beneficial. That's a valid argument in a perfectly transparent world with even negotiating power. But companies are opaque or change their handling of data (that one is the basis of this story!) and there's a race to the bottom where most options are severely lacking in privacy. And these regulations are a very minor impingement on free contract-making. You can still give up privacy, you just can't give it up irrevocably.