7 ms·

I can't help but think that EU situation has helped Google. A flood of new regulation just keeps entrenching them by killing off any potential upstarts that cou

I can't help but think that EU situation has helped Google. A flood of new regulation just keeps entrenching them by killing off any potential upstarts that could compete in Europe.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Isn't this the argument free-marketers have always made? The people who said GDPR would stifle competition? It will be a long time before the outcome of these choices are obvious.
- tick_tock_tick 7y ago
  I'll have to go digging but there already was a good article that made it to the front page here about how much GDPR has helped google. It had some great numbers and graphs showing a sizable increase to googles marketshare once they were the first ones to be "GDPR compliant".
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    Considering how only large tech companies have been fined noticeably so far I doubt that's the case.
    - cpwright 7y ago
      Both things can be true: only large companies have been fined, but the cost of compliance means that small companies exit the market or never enter. Many companies will attempt to follow the rules, even if they think that the probability of getting fined is low.
- d1zzy 7y ago
  And they wouldn't be wrong about that. Note that the 2 main arguments and counter arguments: it helps protect people's information vs it increases the barrier of entry are NOT exclusive. Both can be valid at the same time and I believe that in many regulations they are both valid. That's how life works, a chain of compromises.
  - jklinger410 7y ago
    What are some examples of GDPR increasing barriers to entry?
    - kev009 7y ago
      Trivial example but the nekochan community for SGI retrocomputing shut down because of it. It's particularly hard for small business or unprofitable things done for fun/sport/public benefit.
      - scrollaway 7y ago
        I've seen many people shut down their side projects citing gdpr. Without fail it's always people who haven't really researched the impact gdpr has on them and they didn't really want to keep the project going anyways so it's more of an excuse to shut it down without facing backlash.
        kev009 7y ago
        It seems like you are contorting the blame to "well you should just do more work!" Bureaucratic regulations have costs in implementation, enforcement and non-compliance. Those costs are naturally easy for corporations to absorb because they can hire people to do it full time or whatever the case may be. Maybe several hours or $1000 for a lawyer or whatever to review some regulation are a bridge too far for someone already devoting time and dealing with whatever negatives the side project is coupled with like less free time, negative users/customers/competition, and other opportunity cost. So yes, taking on new and unknown (to the creator) legal liability from some regulation is a great reason to shut down a side project.
        ryandrake 7y ago
        If you’re a hobby project or small business that’s already not collecting customers’ personal information, then what hard work do you have to do to comply with GDPR?
- ajross 7y ago
  The GDPR is intended to protect user privacy, not "competition". Everything has side effects, but if a monoculture of online services is the price, my guess is the drafters of that law (which I'm not a huge fan of, FWIW) would be OK with that. This is the tech industry, we're always just a few decades away from everything being disrupted anyway.
- kllrnohj 7y ago
  There's other new EU regulations than just GDPR. The recent copyright ones do nothing for users but severally cripples startup competitors to YouTube, as an example.
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
My favorite thing about the GDPR is that it's both a secret plot to ruin Google and also a secret plot to protect Google, and I doubt even Google knows which it is.
- manigandham 7y ago
  There's nothing secret about it. Good regulation can help but it's very rare. Instead we have poor regulation done by politicians that don't understand the market or technology, and that always helps the incumbents.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Helping the incumbents isn't always a bad thing, despite what the startup world may say. In living bodies, weakening 'incumbents' against 'disruptors' is called "immunodeficiency".
    - manigandham 7y ago
      The market isn't a living body though, and it's not about whether it's good or bad, only that it helps. In this case, GDPR-style regulation only helps big companies that already have lots of users.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        A country and its economy may be seen like one, though. But regardless, the overhead-inducing parts of GDPR really kick in when a company grows past certain size (250 employees), at which point it should be perfectly capable of handling them. But more importantly, upstarts aren't some protected class. Just because an upstart can't compete against the incumbent without resorting to abuse of personal data, doesn't mean abuse of personal data should be allowed. GDPR protects regular citizens from collateral damage to their privacy caused by market competition. If incumbents can do a better job not abusing the data, maybe they should get the benefits. (Also, it's adtech we're talking about. Personally I want neither the upstarts nor the incumbents to exist, and I couldn't care less who GDPR privileges here.)
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
That is assuming Google's continued surveillance empire is actually found to be legal in the EU. Google claims they are complying with GDPR, but that's... unlikely. We won't really know until they get taken to court over it.

I can't help but think that EU situation has helped Google. A flood of new regulation just keeps entrenching them by killing off any potential upstarts that could compete in Europe.

cameronbrown 7y ago

Isn't this the argument free-marketers have always made? The people who said GDPR would stifle competition? It will be a long time before the outcome of these choices are obvious.

tick_tock_tick 7y ago
I'll have to go digging but there already was a good article that made it to the front page here about how much GDPR has helped google. It had some great numbers and graphs showing a sizable increase to googles marketshare once they were the first ones to be "GDPR compliant".
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
  Considering how only large tech companies have been fined noticeably so far I doubt that's the case.
  - cpwright 7y ago
    Both things can be true: only large companies have been fined, but the cost of compliance means that small companies exit the market or never enter. Many companies will attempt to follow the rules, even if they think that the probability of getting fined is low.
d1zzy 7y ago
And they wouldn't be wrong about that. Note that the 2 main arguments and counter arguments: it helps protect people's information vs it increases the barrier of entry are NOT exclusive. Both can be valid at the same time and I believe that in many regulations they are both valid. That's how life works, a chain of compromises.
- jklinger410 7y ago
  What are some examples of GDPR increasing barriers to entry?
  - kev009 7y ago
    Trivial example but the nekochan community for SGI retrocomputing shut down because of it. It's particularly hard for small business or unprofitable things done for fun/sport/public benefit.
    - scrollaway 7y ago
      I've seen many people shut down their side projects citing gdpr. Without fail it's always people who haven't really researched the impact gdpr has on them and they didn't really want to keep the project going anyways so it's more of an excuse to shut it down without facing backlash.
      - kev009 7y ago
        It seems like you are contorting the blame to "well you should just do more work!" Bureaucratic regulations have costs in implementation, enforcement and non-compliance. Those costs are naturally easy for corporations to absorb because they can hire people to do it full time or whatever the case may be. Maybe several hours or $1000 for a lawyer or whatever to review some regulation are a bridge too far for someone already devoting time and dealing with whatever negatives the side project is coupled with like less free time, negative users/customers/competition, and other opportunity cost. So yes, taking on new and unknown (to the creator) legal liability from some regulation is a great reason to shut down a side project.
        ryandrake 7y ago
        If you’re a hobby project or small business that’s already not collecting customers’ personal information, then what hard work do you have to do to comply with GDPR?
ajross 7y ago
The GDPR is intended to protect user privacy, not "competition". Everything has side effects, but if a monoculture of online services is the price, my guess is the drafters of that law (which I'm not a huge fan of, FWIW) would be OK with that. This is the tech industry, we're always just a few decades away from everything being disrupted anyway.
kllrnohj 7y ago
There's other new EU regulations than just GDPR. The recent copyright ones do nothing for users but severally cripples startup competitors to YouTube, as an example.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

My favorite thing about the GDPR is that it's both a secret plot to ruin Google and also a secret plot to protect Google, and I doubt even Google knows which it is.

manigandham 7y ago
There's nothing secret about it. Good regulation can help but it's very rare. Instead we have poor regulation done by politicians that don't understand the market or technology, and that always helps the incumbents.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Helping the incumbents isn't always a bad thing, despite what the startup world may say. In living bodies, weakening 'incumbents' against 'disruptors' is called "immunodeficiency".
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The market isn't a living body though, and it's not about whether it's good or bad, only that it helps. In this case, GDPR-style regulation only helps big companies that already have lots of users.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      A country and its economy may be seen like one, though. But regardless, the overhead-inducing parts of GDPR really kick in when a company grows past certain size (250 employees), at which point it should be perfectly capable of handling them. But more importantly, upstarts aren't some protected class. Just because an upstart can't compete against the incumbent without resorting to abuse of personal data, doesn't mean abuse of personal data should be allowed. GDPR protects regular citizens from collateral damage to their privacy caused by market competition. If incumbents can do a better job not abusing the data, maybe they should get the benefits. (Also, it's adtech we're talking about. Personally I want neither the upstarts nor the incumbents to exist, and I couldn't care less who GDPR privileges here.)

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

That is assuming Google's continued surveillance empire is actually found to be legal in the EU. Google claims they are complying with GDPR, but that's... unlikely. We won't really know until they get taken to court over it.