5 ms·

A Couple of things: Mainstream news outlets on this side of the atlantic didn't do much reporting on this vote which might signal tacit support on their part (

by sqdbps 8y ago

A Couple of things: Mainstream news outlets on this side of the atlantic didn't do much reporting on this vote which might signal tacit support on their part (at least for the link payment portion of this thing which is frankly the sillies part) and that should shape everyone's understanding of their coverage of tech companies in general. Second, it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is trying to hurt US tech companies be that: copyright, GDPR, antitrust, taxes, and many other initiatives the goals of which are to control and "punish" these companies. It's easy to complaint about silly steel tariffs while they keep enacting these trade barriers on US industry, the fact the the news media isn't making that connection brings it back to the first point.

merinowool 8y ago
Another thing is that the media are licensed, so they cannot go against the government out of fear of losing such license. Now, one could assume that this copyright thing is a smokescreen to introduce EU wide censorship as everything users upload would have to be checked for "copyright breach".
- detaro 8y ago
  Which media is "licensed" and thus can not go against the government?
  - merinowool 8y ago
    All radio and TV and in some countries the press as well.
winkeltripel 8y ago
> much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies Well, somebody's got to take the fight to US tech titans. They're unhealthy for every economy.
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  I think that is a defendable position so long as you are willing to accept the other side, which is massive tariffs against big EU industries. Someone has to take it to the German auto industry which has used lies & deception to up their market share while destroying the environment. Note that I disagree with both points, but they are internally consistent so long as you accept both.
  - laumars 8y ago
    I don't think that is an equivalent comparison as the tariffs you described are targeting specific businesses where as the EU regulations the GP described affect anyone who do business in Europe - including European businesses. However I don't have any particular issue with such tariffs either. If America want to promote their own industries by artificially rising the cost of buying overseas goods and/or subsidising local industries then that is their own decision. However it should be noted that such tariffs often end up costing their economy more.
akoncius 8y ago
> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies I totally understand what you are saying, but on the other hand: maybe a lot of US tech companies do unethical/bad things? Antitrust cases must be based on something, so it's not just tariff on tech company products, it's more like a fine for bad behaviour.
- sqdbps 8y ago
  They are also based on massive political will that distorts the interpretation of the law and economic understanding and turns them into weapons.
- nickik 8y ago
  > Antitrust cases must be based on something A study of the history of Antitrust would abuse of of that naive thinking.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    I’m truly not overly familiar with the history of such cases. I’d appreciate some direction on how to undertake such a study. Any good places to start reading about this?
    - bertil 8y ago
      I would strongly recommend Tim Wu’s _Master Switch_, because it is well-written, and focused on how those conversation influence today controls. The overall trend in anti-trust is that most of the issue is not that people have done demonstrably bad things: Rockefeller typically would over-pay for the distributors and wells that he purchased–and he was the only buyer. The issue was more that prior to the negotiation, he used often unconventional but legal tactics (like showing his books) to make clear that he could conduct a price war, and would ruin the company that he was offering to purchase. The price he did pay typically was low without that in mind, but every other potential buyer knew as much and stepped away. The whole debate wasn’t focusing on measurable harm, but the ability to threaten, hence a focus on market share. Since, it has gone up, to catch less blatant, but not unjustified potential to harm the market: the key measure went from market share to Lerner index which measure the ability to raise your own price without loosing share. Apple typically has a small market share of smartphones worldwide, but seem to be able to raise their prices without loosing much sales; that allows them to corner supplies by over-bidding and retain feature exclusivity. It’s less morally obvious that this would hurt the market, but some executives at Samsung are probably adamant that this is a major concern, let alone smaller player. There are still some hard evidence, but the bar has become surprisingly low: three cellphone providers in France were fined one Billion Euros (with a B) for price-fixing, based on the testimony of a taxi driver and a penciled-in and rubbered-off “Ok on Yalta” on someone’s notebook (and significant econometric proof that prices stopped going down). The discretionary ability of the Competition Authority becomes key, i.e. they ability to enforce a loosely defined norm of market preservation. Current trend is closer to consider dynamic considerations, the ability of currently non-existent firms to enter the market: has Facebook’s ability to purchase Instagram and challenge Snap discouraged entrepreneurs? Facebook did nothing illegal buying one or offering feature that they users enjoyed on the other; however, that behaviour, couple with the ability to invest a lot of developers, can seem threatening and discourage entrepreneurs. Who do you ask if that was significant? Investors who said they wouldn’t invest on that basis? Young CS graduates? Disclaimer: I was personally involved in most of the cases that I mention, either working for the company being looked into, or serving as an expert for regulators. I’m happy to provide context, but none of this should be considered testimony.
laumars 8y ago
> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies These are European laws designed to regulate industry inside the EU. If an American company decides to do business in the EU they're subject to the same rules as any business already operating inside the EU. So claiming this is designed to hurt US tech companies is quite a reach. If you feel American tech companies are being hit harder than their EU counterparts then perhaps that is because those American tech companies were attempting to game the system to begin with - in which case the EU is right to regulate their European operations. It's really no different to how goods manufactured outside of the US still have to adhere to American safety regulations if they want to get sold inside the US.
- sqdbps 8y ago
  That's a dishonest argument, yeah these laws theoretically apply to everyone but they were designed specifically for and disportionately affect US companies. As for the "gaming the system" argument that doesn't comport with really either since these laws were introduced after the fact.
  - laumars 8y ago
    > That's a dishonest argument. Honestly, I felt the same about your argument. What you're suggesting is that American companies should not abide the the same laws as European companies when doing business in Europe. Which is an awfully biased position to take. Have you actually stopped to look at why some US companies have been hit? The anti-trust cases, for example, highlighted some highly unethical behaviour. Also have you actually spent any time researching into whether European companies come under the same scrutiny or are you just assuming it doesn't happen because you only read about American business over in America? Spoiler alert, the EU does come down on European businesses equally hard. I get that the American philosophy to business is often about deregulation. But that's not how Europe works and if American companies want to do business in the EU then it's only fair that they have to follow the same rules as European business do. Like I said before, if you want to sell imported goods in America then those goods still have to meet American safety standards. We all agree that is acceptable. And equally I'm sure you agree that European companies who do business in America should abide by American law. So why should it be any different with EU regulations? [edit] I'm not going to defend the copyright reform though. That proposal is just dumb. But in terms of your point, I can see it hurting EU businesses as well as American ones.
lbarrow 8y ago
I don't think this is accurate - GDPR, for example, mostly cements the continued dominance of the tech giants.

by sqdbps 8y ago

merinowool 8y ago

Another thing is that the media are licensed, so they cannot go against the government out of fear of losing such license. Now, one could assume that this copyright thing is a smokescreen to introduce EU wide censorship as everything users upload would have to be checked for "copyright breach".

detaro 8y ago
Which media is "licensed" and thus can not go against the government?
- merinowool 8y ago
  All radio and TV and in some countries the press as well.

winkeltripel 8y ago

> much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies Well, somebody's got to take the fight to US tech titans. They're unhealthy for every economy.

kasey_junk 8y ago
I think that is a defendable position so long as you are willing to accept the other side, which is massive tariffs against big EU industries. Someone has to take it to the German auto industry which has used lies & deception to up their market share while destroying the environment. Note that I disagree with both points, but they are internally consistent so long as you accept both.
- laumars 8y ago
  I don't think that is an equivalent comparison as the tariffs you described are targeting specific businesses where as the EU regulations the GP described affect anyone who do business in Europe - including European businesses. However I don't have any particular issue with such tariffs either. If America want to promote their own industries by artificially rising the cost of buying overseas goods and/or subsidising local industries then that is their own decision. However it should be noted that such tariffs often end up costing their economy more.

akoncius 8y ago

> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies I totally understand what you are saying, but on the other hand: maybe a lot of US tech companies do unethical/bad things? Antitrust cases must be based on something, so it's not just tariff on tech company products, it's more like a fine for bad behaviour.

sqdbps 8y ago
They are also based on massive political will that distorts the interpretation of the law and economic understanding and turns them into weapons.
nickik 8y ago
> Antitrust cases must be based on something A study of the history of Antitrust would abuse of of that naive thinking.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  I’m truly not overly familiar with the history of such cases. I’d appreciate some direction on how to undertake such a study. Any good places to start reading about this?
  - bertil 8y ago
    I would strongly recommend Tim Wu’s _Master Switch_, because it is well-written, and focused on how those conversation influence today controls. The overall trend in anti-trust is that most of the issue is not that people have done demonstrably bad things: Rockefeller typically would over-pay for the distributors and wells that he purchased–and he was the only buyer. The issue was more that prior to the negotiation, he used often unconventional but legal tactics (like showing his books) to make clear that he could conduct a price war, and would ruin the company that he was offering to purchase. The price he did pay typically was low without that in mind, but every other potential buyer knew as much and stepped away. The whole debate wasn’t focusing on measurable harm, but the ability to threaten, hence a focus on market share. Since, it has gone up, to catch less blatant, but not unjustified potential to harm the market: the key measure went from market share to Lerner index which measure the ability to raise your own price without loosing share. Apple typically has a small market share of smartphones worldwide, but seem to be able to raise their prices without loosing much sales; that allows them to corner supplies by over-bidding and retain feature exclusivity. It’s less morally obvious that this would hurt the market, but some executives at Samsung are probably adamant that this is a major concern, let alone smaller player. There are still some hard evidence, but the bar has become surprisingly low: three cellphone providers in France were fined one Billion Euros (with a B) for price-fixing, based on the testimony of a taxi driver and a penciled-in and rubbered-off “Ok on Yalta” on someone’s notebook (and significant econometric proof that prices stopped going down). The discretionary ability of the Competition Authority becomes key, i.e. they ability to enforce a loosely defined norm of market preservation. Current trend is closer to consider dynamic considerations, the ability of currently non-existent firms to enter the market: has Facebook’s ability to purchase Instagram and challenge Snap discouraged entrepreneurs? Facebook did nothing illegal buying one or offering feature that they users enjoyed on the other; however, that behaviour, couple with the ability to invest a lot of developers, can seem threatening and discourage entrepreneurs. Who do you ask if that was significant? Investors who said they wouldn’t invest on that basis? Young CS graduates? Disclaimer: I was personally involved in most of the cases that I mention, either working for the company being looked into, or serving as an expert for regulators. I’m happy to provide context, but none of this should be considered testimony.

laumars 8y ago

> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies These are European laws designed to regulate industry inside the EU. If an American company decides to do business in the EU they're subject to the same rules as any business already operating inside the EU. So claiming this is designed to hurt US tech companies is quite a reach. If you feel American tech companies are being hit harder than their EU counterparts then perhaps that is because those American tech companies were attempting to game the system to begin with - in which case the EU is right to regulate their European operations. It's really no different to how goods manufactured outside of the US still have to adhere to American safety regulations if they want to get sold inside the US.

sqdbps 8y ago
That's a dishonest argument, yeah these laws theoretically apply to everyone but they were designed specifically for and disportionately affect US companies. As for the "gaming the system" argument that doesn't comport with really either since these laws were introduced after the fact.
- laumars 8y ago
  > That's a dishonest argument. Honestly, I felt the same about your argument. What you're suggesting is that American companies should not abide the the same laws as European companies when doing business in Europe. Which is an awfully biased position to take. Have you actually stopped to look at why some US companies have been hit? The anti-trust cases, for example, highlighted some highly unethical behaviour. Also have you actually spent any time researching into whether European companies come under the same scrutiny or are you just assuming it doesn't happen because you only read about American business over in America? Spoiler alert, the EU does come down on European businesses equally hard. I get that the American philosophy to business is often about deregulation. But that's not how Europe works and if American companies want to do business in the EU then it's only fair that they have to follow the same rules as European business do. Like I said before, if you want to sell imported goods in America then those goods still have to meet American safety standards. We all agree that is acceptable. And equally I'm sure you agree that European companies who do business in America should abide by American law. So why should it be any different with EU regulations? [edit] I'm not going to defend the copyright reform though. That proposal is just dumb. But in terms of your point, I can see it hurting EU businesses as well as American ones.

lbarrow 8y ago

I don't think this is accurate - GDPR, for example, mostly cements the continued dominance of the tech giants.