5 ms·
Ahead or not is subjective. As a USA citizen, I will bite and try not to show too much bias. 1) Simple cost/benefit. The EU has very little to lose and very mu
by kodablah 8y ago
Ahead or not is subjective. As a USA citizen, I will bite and try not to show too much bias.
1) Simple cost/benefit. The EU has very little to lose and very much to gain by making rules favoring internet users. The US has very little to gain and very much to lose by making rules harming internet companies.
2) Trust. Europeans trust their governments to do good for them compared to internet companies. Americans trust their governments to do worse to them compared to internet companies. It's quite possible both are right. Similarly, Europeans implicitly trust this is not the beginning of a slippery slope of internet legislation whereas Americans very much fear that giving lawmakers an inch encourages them to take a mile. Same goes for willingness to repeal.
3) Enforcement. Europeans know, based on previous incarnations and regulator statements, that enforcement will be lax and/or subjective and/or limited in scope. Americans fear large-scoped laws since they expect enforcement and court battles once on the books.
4) Perceived harm. Europeans see many more harms from these internet companies than do Americans (HN notwithstanding). Americans simply don't believe tracking and data collection of public data is that big of a deal, especially for the tradeoff they get in services they or others choose to use. It's apathy, not ignorance as many here would have you believe.
5) Scope. Kinda the same as trust, Europeans aren't bothered by large-scoped legislation against businesses and Americans are. I suspect you'll see transparency/disclosure requirements one day in very limited form, but I doubt it'll become so expansive as allowing user requests, requiring certain forms/figureheads, and forcing businesses to do business with the user after opting out of tracking.
6) Freedoms. Europeans see a clear separation between consumers and companies wrt freedoms. Americans see companies, especially small ones, as just collections of citizens. Small business and entrepreneur compliance burdens are very much considered by American lawmakers on new law areas like the open internet.
There are exceptions to all of this of course, but I gather these are the general climate differences.
- hodwic 8y agoI think the biggest thing is more cultural than related to any specific argument -- it's America's strong cultural bent against busy-bodies. Whether political activists, art critics, family members, next-door neighbors, school boards, building code inspectors, whatever it is. It's our core prejudice. The French are racist, the English classist, Americans hate busy-bodies. It is core to Americans that people should think and act locally, as a rule. Basically -- mind your own business. Applied to GDPR, this philosophy goes; "Unless you or someone you know has been concretely hurt by these businesses tracking them, why are you trying to make a law about it?" To an American, when we hear someone trying to fix something that they have not themselves been a victim of, it sets off our busy-body radar, and we prepare to defend ourselves.
- eropple 8y agoThis characterization of Americans, followed through to a not-particularly-strenuous conclusion, indicates that "Americans"--you know, real Americans--should have been A-OK with...I dunno...Dred Scott. Or pervasive corporate surveillance, as you indicate. It's a very Whig and very rich lens upon society and, frankly, not one I expect many Americans actually hold. Were that the case, one would not see, say, so many "states' rights" types being so concerned over the bathrooms used by trans people or who so-and-so is allowed to marry (not even just gay marriage--miscegenation laws go how far back?) and the like. Americans are nosy and paranoid; we distrust our neighbors to the point of societal breakdown on the regular and we just get inordinately mad when somebody cares about our stuff. It's not a "don't scream until you get shot," it's a "fuck you, got mine." There's a real difference here.
- hodwic 8y agoFirst, you're mistaking my characterization for Americans with my own philosophy. That's in error. I am a busybody. Second, you're mistaking your own partisan lens for what constitutes busybodyness with the American Public's lens. Americans are radically middle, rebelliously centrist, and hate changes when they come from either side of the political aisle. And so the busybody thing cuts both ways -- - It blocks your liberal attempts at busybodyness (trans bathroom laws, trigger warnings, political correctness) and -It blocks our conservative attempts at busybodyness (additional censorship in media, stop and frisk, morality laws). Americans are/were against laws to forcibly open up bathrooms to everyone and marriages to same sex couples specifically because those things appear/appeared busybodyish. Both of those things are/were changes to the law. That makes them inherently busybody. Taking the gay marriage debate: it was only when gay folks were finally able to convince America that new laws blocking them would be more busybody than letting the laws die in court, did gay folks win the public argument. But changes are coming that are great for conservatives, as the left is starting to lose their title of the anti-busybody; The university social justice wing has taken on the role that the Westboro Baptist Church played in 1990's American politics, the supreme busybody, and Americans are turning against them. This is deadly to liberal politics, since being the busybody is the worst thing you can be in American politics.
- 8y ago