6 ms·

Europe's not going to stop until the internet is totally burned to the ground, are they?

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Or the illegal monopoly controlling it is.
gambiting 7y ago
You mean the US, right? Also these decisions are done on the national level - France can rule whatever they want, it has no impact on the other EU member states.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
perceptronas 7y ago
Fair point if you are referring to cookie notices, link taxes, filters. However, this decision is only for France
na85 7y ago
Seems to me the EU and GDPR-like legislation is saving the internet from the cancer of corporate control, particularly American Big Data like Google and Facebook. The latter are the ones burning the internet down with their walled gardens.
- gliboc 7y ago
  Thank you: this conversation was beginning to feel surreal, between the "let's pull the plug on these frenchies!" and the "how dare a sovereign state wants to legiferate on the activities of an American company on its territory"... I do enjoy the irony of some Americans blaming big data companies when the president of their choice does not get elected, all the while advocating for less power to French news agencies (e.g. death by asphyxiation from Google news, without any recourse).
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure it's different people in each case. Certainly I don't blame any big tech company for any election. All I want is the Internet as I recall it: free voluntary association. My user agent is powerful enough to ensure this and I'm happy with it. If I wanted to use only directories and webrings I could do so today. I'm fine with that. If I want to use Google I have to use Google terms. That's okay. If I don't, I can easily just not. I don't think it'll last, though. The guys who blame tech companies for elections are the same guys saying they need to be regulated. And so eventually we'll have all these highly-regulated services instead of the thing I've enjoyed. But that's the tyranny of the majority, I suppose. I can find a way to work with it.
joejerryronnie 7y ago
Correct. Europe’s main concern is regaining the power and influence they once held a couple centuries ago. These rulings are not really about tech business practices or consumer rights. You see the same thing playing out in the US with the east coast establishment (politics and media) fighting back against the power shift west.
- CPLX 7y ago
  Good. Intense concentrations of power are a problem, by definition. We did literally base the US system of government on this concept.
  - joejerryronnie 7y ago
    Interesting that everybody is looking to the Federal Government to solve their problems now.
    - falcor84 7y ago
      I don't see any conflict between wanting the federal government to be small, while still wanting that federal government to be in charge of some things - this is literally the reason for having a federation in the first place
      - joejerryronnie 7y ago
        The Federal Gov can’t be small and be in charge of all the things at the same time (not your statement but the general expectation I was referring to). It’s a balancing act but we always seem to strive for one extreme or the other.
        CPLX 7y ago
        I wasn’t making any reference to the size of the federal government, I was referencing the first year first day basic concept of separation of powers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 7y ago
Google is responsible for burning the Internet to the ground. In general, Silicon Valley companies pretend to be creating Internet-ethos software while actually creating centrally administered proprietary services that are lightning rods for regulation. The net effect is helping to immunize incumbent power structures against real decentralized communications. This decision would have necessarily been different if the case were about a diffuse Internet-native p2p app, but after this precedent has been set the legal system is now primed to see both the same way.
- qnsi 7y ago
  why do you think no decentralized community worked? In my humble opinion it's because users don't actually care about them. Twitter is pretty open, meaning you can write pretty much anything you want and it helped topple some power structures in middle east. what do you think would happen in the USA if there were only open source software on the Internet?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Gobs of investment money, predicated on capturing sticky network effects down the line, outcompetes volunteer projects. Twitter is an extension of the US power structure. Destabilizing the Middle East is in line with US policy. But for example, where are the official Twitter accounts of ISIS et al?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
matheusmoreira 7y ago
The internet was never going to last anyway. Every country wants to impose its own laws on it in order to guarantee the rights of their citizens. Instead of one international network, we'll end up with many national networks with strictly controlled boundaries. I'm fortunate I got to know the true internet. Truly one of the great wonders of this world.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  The Internet isn't a magical virtual destination immune to the law. It's a communication technology, and like fax, the telephone, and the postal system before it, it runs within the framework of laws of the countries it operates in.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    "The" law? There are as many as there are sovereign nations. Are foreigners subjected to your country's laws when they post on your site? No. Your laws cannot be enforced because those people aren't subjected to it. Like an embassy on foreign soil, you have no actual power over those people. This very site's terms of service infringes my rights by requiring arbitration. Can I do anything about it by legal means? Who knows? Could I even sue them to begin with? Could they even sue me? Do the terms even matter at all?
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      So essentially each country has control of the physical structure within their borders. This is not different from any other technology. Now, a country can then hold anything they control as collateral for any other demand they make: France could block a site from the country, they could seize any assets that site has in the country, or arrest personnel in that country. France has a vested interest in not overplaying their hand, such that companies won't operate there at all, but effectively a country has complete power to demand anything in exchange for access to their country. In that way, the Internet is not subject to any country's law in only that country, but every country's law in every country, insofar as those countries are places they want to do business. Nothing here is new and the US is traditionally the largest user of this sort of power.
BoorishBears 7y ago
If you can’t beat them, regulate; nickel and dime them
ryuukk_ 7y ago
haha mozilla is mad because they got caught begging for European commission money, ahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahaha crapzilla bunch of beggars, get ready to meet with the SEC
bvandewalle 7y ago
I will take Europe over the US where my private data is being sold by Facebook and Google to the highest bidder without any single law protecting me. Sure some of those laws are a pain but they are needed checks and balances to avoid living in a dystopian world.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
  You are lucky then that you are literally wrong. Neither FB nor Google are selling your data to anyone.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    fb has been caught granting advertisers direct access to user data. So maybe they don't now, but there is reason to distrust them. Google has never been caught doing anything of the sort but even sophisticated and savvy commentators like those you find on hn have a hard time distinguishing between the two companies, for reasons that escape my understanding.
  - hedora 7y ago
    Selling targeting information about me is a form of “selling my data”. Out of $160b in revenue in 2019, $134b of Google’s revenue came from ads. Most of the ad revenue is in the form of targeted ads, so if they stopped selling people’s information, they’d immediately go under. Similar numbers apply to Facebook. I honestly don’t understand where this argument that those companies don’t sell people’s information comes from. I hear it often enough to wonder if people are intentionally being disingenuous, astroturfing, etc...
    - bryan_w 7y ago
      Both Google and FB are ad distributors so the data they have is their gold. They would never hand out csv or database dumps to anyone as that would potentially give their competition an advantage. There are companies where you can buy email lists or other information about certain demographics, but that's not Google or Facebook's business. That's why people say Google or FB sell data.
dang 7y ago
Maybe not, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. Especially not continentalistic flamebait.

Or the illegal monopoly controlling it is.

You mean the US, right? Also these decisions are done on the national level - France can rule whatever they want, it has no impact on the other EU member states.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

perceptronas 7y ago

Fair point if you are referring to cookie notices, link taxes, filters. However, this decision is only for France

na85 7y ago

Seems to me the EU and GDPR-like legislation is saving the internet from the cancer of corporate control, particularly American Big Data like Google and Facebook. The latter are the ones burning the internet down with their walled gardens.

gliboc 7y ago
Thank you: this conversation was beginning to feel surreal, between the "let's pull the plug on these frenchies!" and the "how dare a sovereign state wants to legiferate on the activities of an American company on its territory"... I do enjoy the irony of some Americans blaming big data companies when the president of their choice does not get elected, all the while advocating for less power to French news agencies (e.g. death by asphyxiation from Google news, without any recourse).
- renewiltord 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's different people in each case. Certainly I don't blame any big tech company for any election. All I want is the Internet as I recall it: free voluntary association. My user agent is powerful enough to ensure this and I'm happy with it. If I wanted to use only directories and webrings I could do so today. I'm fine with that. If I want to use Google I have to use Google terms. That's okay. If I don't, I can easily just not. I don't think it'll last, though. The guys who blame tech companies for elections are the same guys saying they need to be regulated. And so eventually we'll have all these highly-regulated services instead of the thing I've enjoyed. But that's the tyranny of the majority, I suppose. I can find a way to work with it.

joejerryronnie 7y ago

Correct. Europe’s main concern is regaining the power and influence they once held a couple centuries ago. These rulings are not really about tech business practices or consumer rights. You see the same thing playing out in the US with the east coast establishment (politics and media) fighting back against the power shift west.

CPLX 7y ago
Good. Intense concentrations of power are a problem, by definition. We did literally base the US system of government on this concept.
- joejerryronnie 7y ago
  Interesting that everybody is looking to the Federal Government to solve their problems now.
  - falcor84 7y ago
    I don't see any conflict between wanting the federal government to be small, while still wanting that federal government to be in charge of some things - this is literally the reason for having a federation in the first place
    - joejerryronnie 7y ago
      The Federal Gov can’t be small and be in charge of all the things at the same time (not your statement but the general expectation I was referring to). It’s a balancing act but we always seem to strive for one extreme or the other.
      - CPLX 7y ago
        I wasn’t making any reference to the size of the federal government, I was referencing the first year first day basic concept of separation of powers.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 7y ago

Google is responsible for burning the Internet to the ground. In general, Silicon Valley companies pretend to be creating Internet-ethos software while actually creating centrally administered proprietary services that are lightning rods for regulation. The net effect is helping to immunize incumbent power structures against real decentralized communications. This decision would have necessarily been different if the case were about a diffuse Internet-native p2p app, but after this precedent has been set the legal system is now primed to see both the same way.

qnsi 7y ago
why do you think no decentralized community worked? In my humble opinion it's because users don't actually care about them. Twitter is pretty open, meaning you can write pretty much anything you want and it helped topple some power structures in middle east. what do you think would happen in the USA if there were only open source software on the Internet?
- mindslight 7y ago
  Gobs of investment money, predicated on capturing sticky network effects down the line, outcompetes volunteer projects. Twitter is an extension of the US power structure. Destabilizing the Middle East is in line with US policy. But for example, where are the official Twitter accounts of ISIS et al?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

matheusmoreira 7y ago

The internet was never going to last anyway. Every country wants to impose its own laws on it in order to guarantee the rights of their citizens. Instead of one international network, we'll end up with many national networks with strictly controlled boundaries. I'm fortunate I got to know the true internet. Truly one of the great wonders of this world.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The Internet isn't a magical virtual destination immune to the law. It's a communication technology, and like fax, the telephone, and the postal system before it, it runs within the framework of laws of the countries it operates in.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  "The" law? There are as many as there are sovereign nations. Are foreigners subjected to your country's laws when they post on your site? No. Your laws cannot be enforced because those people aren't subjected to it. Like an embassy on foreign soil, you have no actual power over those people. This very site's terms of service infringes my rights by requiring arbitration. Can I do anything about it by legal means? Who knows? Could I even sue them to begin with? Could they even sue me? Do the terms even matter at all?
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    So essentially each country has control of the physical structure within their borders. This is not different from any other technology. Now, a country can then hold anything they control as collateral for any other demand they make: France could block a site from the country, they could seize any assets that site has in the country, or arrest personnel in that country. France has a vested interest in not overplaying their hand, such that companies won't operate there at all, but effectively a country has complete power to demand anything in exchange for access to their country. In that way, the Internet is not subject to any country's law in only that country, but every country's law in every country, insofar as those countries are places they want to do business. Nothing here is new and the US is traditionally the largest user of this sort of power.

BoorishBears 7y ago

If you can’t beat them, regulate; nickel and dime them

ryuukk_ 7y ago

haha mozilla is mad because they got caught begging for European commission money, ahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahaha crapzilla bunch of beggars, get ready to meet with the SEC

bvandewalle 7y ago

I will take Europe over the US where my private data is being sold by Facebook and Google to the highest bidder without any single law protecting me. Sure some of those laws are a pain but they are needed checks and balances to avoid living in a dystopian world.

kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
You are lucky then that you are literally wrong. Neither FB nor Google are selling your data to anyone.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  fb has been caught granting advertisers direct access to user data. So maybe they don't now, but there is reason to distrust them. Google has never been caught doing anything of the sort but even sophisticated and savvy commentators like those you find on hn have a hard time distinguishing between the two companies, for reasons that escape my understanding.
- hedora 7y ago
  Selling targeting information about me is a form of “selling my data”. Out of $160b in revenue in 2019, $134b of Google’s revenue came from ads. Most of the ad revenue is in the form of targeted ads, so if they stopped selling people’s information, they’d immediately go under. Similar numbers apply to Facebook. I honestly don’t understand where this argument that those companies don’t sell people’s information comes from. I hear it often enough to wonder if people are intentionally being disingenuous, astroturfing, etc...
  - bryan_w 7y ago
    Both Google and FB are ad distributors so the data they have is their gold. They would never hand out csv or database dumps to anyone as that would potentially give their competition an advantage. There are companies where you can buy email lists or other information about certain demographics, but that's not Google or Facebook's business. That's why people say Google or FB sell data.

dang 7y ago

Maybe not, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. Especially not continentalistic flamebait.