5 ms·

I was very surprised and suddenly pulled back into a feeling of tangible hope when around the end of the plenary session a French / Belgian member of the parlia

I was very surprised and suddenly pulled back into a feeling of tangible hope when around the end of the plenary session a French / Belgian member of the parliament went mad about unanswered questions. He said: " ... There are a number of questions that have been put by other colleagues that I want an answer to. That said, I'm anxious about this brave new world that Mr. Zuckerberg has presented us -- a brave new world what tens and tens and tens of thousands of private people are scrutinizing us and are saying “what is fake news” and “what is not fake news”, “what is hate speech” and “what is not hate speech”. Don't you think that this is a public task?" He very subtly mentioned that the anti-trust bodies could mobilized to look into this if questions wouldn't be answered [1] -- https://youtu.be/bVoE_rb5g5k?t=5285 https://youtu.be/bVoE_rb5g5k?t=5285. [1] "... And competition for example: an anti-trust thing, that's important! Do we need -- I think we're gonna push our anti trust agency to go into this if there is no good answer to!" --- Here's an interview with Guy Verhofstadt (thanks, repolfx! I wasn't aware of who he is): https://www.channel4.com/news/guy-verhofstadt-mep-on-mark-zuckerberg-i-doubt-he-will-apply-new-data-privacy-rules https://www.channel4.com/news/guy-verhofstadt-mep-on-mark-zu...

repolfx 8y ago
That's Verhofstadt, the head of the EU Parliament. I don't know what gave you hope about that. It's mafia tactics and confirms the worst suspicions people have had about EU anti-trust enforcement. What does privacy rules have to do with monopoly or anti-trust? As far as I can tell, nothing. But the EU appears dangerously close to taking an official policy that anti-trust fines are based on whether Guy Verhofstadt and his friends personally like your answers at unrelated hearings. Make Guy happy or you'll be inconveniently re-classified as a monopoly. Never mind the existence of LinkedIn or Google+ or other competing networks.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- padthai 8y ago
  The EU Parliament President is Antonio Tajani. Verhofstadt is just a regular MEP, though he is also chair of an European party that commands 7-8% of the MEPs.
- pyrale 8y ago
  Things have always worked like that. Why do you think Google or FB are escaping antitrust despite a behaviour much more egregious than Microsoft ever was ? Don't fool yourself ; the normal state of affair would have been for them to be torn appart, and the current state is corrupt.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Escaping it where - apparently not in the EU, although it's unclear what monopolies they actually have. In America they've escaped anti-trust attention because it's hard to prove any consumers have been harmed by their activities.
    - pyrale 8y ago
      Well, maybe the EU will prove that such things are easier to see if you actually take a look.
      - repolfx 8y ago
        They definitely won't because EU competition law doesn't care about whether there was harm to consumers or not. It's based on different principles to American law, arguably worse ones (harm to competitors, which is sort of the point of competition to begin with).
        vntok 8y ago
        You may build a faster car engine than your competitor's so that your team can visit and close more prospects per day. You may not blow up the tires of your competitor's car so the other team cannot visit anyone.
        repolfx 8y ago
        Blowing up tires is physical damage and does not require any specific anti-trust laws. That's the problem with metaphors - sometimes they obscure the reality of things. Anti-trust covers much vaguer and more debatable 'crimes'. For instance Microsoft was rapped over bundling Internet Explorer although every OS comes with a web browser these days and nobody considers it controversial anymore. The main crime was giving exclusivity discounts to customers, but that isn't specifically forbidden as far as I know. It's just an interpretation. At any rate, the EU doesn't require even the slightest analogue to 'blowing up tires'. They went after Google Shopping although Google was providing search referral and advertising to their own competitors - actually helping them, not hindering them. The existence of other big product search engines like Amazon didn't help, the EU fined them anyway. I didn't believe before that EU anti-trust enforcement was based on the rule of law, and Verhofstadt appears to have confirmed it today.
- SeanMacConMara 8y ago
  >What does privacy rules have to do with monopoly or anti-trust? They are becoming related. Monopoly laws traditionally apply to commercial transactions. Facebook's customers are not experiencing a monopoly, they can easily switch to other ad-space vendors. Many of Facebook's "crop" however happen to be voters who feel new laws are required to deal with Facebook's "network monopoly" especially as it is entirely arbitrary, harmful and very profitable. Privacy aka legal ownership and control of data is one way to erode that "network monopoly".
zerostar07 8y ago
verhofstad is ok but tends to go on hyperbolic tangents

repolfx 8y ago

That's Verhofstadt, the head of the EU Parliament. I don't know what gave you hope about that. It's mafia tactics and confirms the worst suspicions people have had about EU anti-trust enforcement. What does privacy rules have to do with monopoly or anti-trust? As far as I can tell, nothing. But the EU appears dangerously close to taking an official policy that anti-trust fines are based on whether Guy Verhofstadt and his friends personally like your answers at unrelated hearings. Make Guy happy or you'll be inconveniently re-classified as a monopoly. Never mind the existence of LinkedIn or Google+ or other competing networks.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
padthai 8y ago
The EU Parliament President is Antonio Tajani. Verhofstadt is just a regular MEP, though he is also chair of an European party that commands 7-8% of the MEPs.
pyrale 8y ago
Things have always worked like that. Why do you think Google or FB are escaping antitrust despite a behaviour much more egregious than Microsoft ever was ? Don't fool yourself ; the normal state of affair would have been for them to be torn appart, and the current state is corrupt.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Escaping it where - apparently not in the EU, although it's unclear what monopolies they actually have. In America they've escaped anti-trust attention because it's hard to prove any consumers have been harmed by their activities.
  - pyrale 8y ago
    Well, maybe the EU will prove that such things are easier to see if you actually take a look.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      They definitely won't because EU competition law doesn't care about whether there was harm to consumers or not. It's based on different principles to American law, arguably worse ones (harm to competitors, which is sort of the point of competition to begin with).
      - vntok 8y ago
        You may build a faster car engine than your competitor's so that your team can visit and close more prospects per day. You may not blow up the tires of your competitor's car so the other team cannot visit anyone.
        repolfx 8y ago
        Blowing up tires is physical damage and does not require any specific anti-trust laws. That's the problem with metaphors - sometimes they obscure the reality of things. Anti-trust covers much vaguer and more debatable 'crimes'. For instance Microsoft was rapped over bundling Internet Explorer although every OS comes with a web browser these days and nobody considers it controversial anymore. The main crime was giving exclusivity discounts to customers, but that isn't specifically forbidden as far as I know. It's just an interpretation. At any rate, the EU doesn't require even the slightest analogue to 'blowing up tires'. They went after Google Shopping although Google was providing search referral and advertising to their own competitors - actually helping them, not hindering them. The existence of other big product search engines like Amazon didn't help, the EU fined them anyway. I didn't believe before that EU anti-trust enforcement was based on the rule of law, and Verhofstadt appears to have confirmed it today.
SeanMacConMara 8y ago
>What does privacy rules have to do with monopoly or anti-trust? They are becoming related. Monopoly laws traditionally apply to commercial transactions. Facebook's customers are not experiencing a monopoly, they can easily switch to other ad-space vendors. Many of Facebook's "crop" however happen to be voters who feel new laws are required to deal with Facebook's "network monopoly" especially as it is entirely arbitrary, harmful and very profitable. Privacy aka legal ownership and control of data is one way to erode that "network monopoly".

zerostar07 8y ago

verhofstad is ok but tends to go on hyperbolic tangents