> How is your personal home the same thing as a gigantic, billion-user social network that has effectively (especially in 2020) replaced the pub, the bar, the town square, and the public forum? It's not, and you know it isn't.
I think the scale is a good point (no idea what your original post contained since it was flagged before I read it). Twitter and a handful of other social media companies handle (by which I mean "choose who gets to see what content") such an enormous volume of speech that its moderation policies can influence elections and therefore public policy. Moreover, their power is inherently anti-competitive--users can't take their network to another platform because these platforms don't interoperate by design. It seems like this is an antitrust issue, especially since these networks tend to lobby together to protect their interests.
"do, it’s also why democracy is such a big thing"
Voters of France and Netherlands strongly rejected the treaty upon which the EU derives is legitimacy. Referendums were cancelled elsewhere.
Ursula von der Leyen did not receive any votes, she wasn't even part of the process, she was an unknown German figure until after the election, when she was plucked from obscurity by actors acting in total opacity, behind closed doors: "Here is your New Leader".
I respect much of the commercial facility of the EU, but it's severely lacking in democracy.
And while I think a lot of the intentions of the current system are reasonable, a lot of it is not ... and I'm super concerned that totally unelected and unaccountable elite are just going to be smashing their big hands into the economy, with the simplistic populist notions of 'American Economic Imperialism' and a kind of anti-American jealousy just under the surface.
It'd be nice to see much more thoughtfulness here, but more importantly, mechanisms to improve European competitiveness.
The EU democratic structure is complex, that for sure. But it's hardly undemocratic.
The EU has always struggled to explain how it works, why it's structure works the way it does. But all the leaders in the EU are elected, just not always via direct elections. A process that actually isn't that unusual in the world.
The US is actually a bit of an outlier, because they have direct elections for almost every position in government, with some slightly mixed results. The EU it's common for countries to select and organise their executive bodies via in-direct elections. For example in the UK our prime minister isn't directly elected, the general public didn't "choose" Boris Johnson. Instead the conservative party did, via its own methodology which it can change any time it does.
The current byzantine system exists out of a need to somehow balance the power of the EU as a federal entity, against the sovereignty of the individual nations. With irony come from the fact that the "unelected" leader only exist because it give more power to leaders of the member states, and takes it away from the EU as an organisation independent of its member states and their elected governments.
The EU democratic structure is complex, that for sure. But it's hardly undemocratic.
I don't really want to start a rehash of the entire Brexit debate we had in the UK, but the EU does have a serious democratic deficit.
Ask yourself this simple question: Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
It would take quite a leap to argue that the European Commission, which is where most of the real power still lies in practice, would meet any of those standards.
It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does, though it is at least more directly affected by the public vote.
For example in the UK our prime minister isn't directly elected, the general public didn't "choose" Boris Johnson. Instead the conservative party did, via its own methodology which it can change any time it does.
Our arrangement here in the UK suffers from a similar problem of failing to faithfully represent the will of the electorate. FPTP is a deeply flawed voting system on purely mathematical grounds, and then the mechanics through which the PM and by extension the government come to power once MPs have been elected can be even more distorted.
If you don't think it matters that many of our population have little influence over who occupies Number 10, I would respectfully remind you that one of the first things each new PM does is handwrite four letters that could literally cause the end of the world as we know it.
> Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
Erm yes. A large group of citizen can apply pressure to its local government to push for change in the EU, they can also to the same via MEP elections. You just need to remember that a "large group" need to be very large to be considered important relative to the EU 450 million citizens. The UK's total population only makes up 14% of the total EU population, what gives us the right to dictate terms over the remaining 86%?
National governments pick the members of the European Commision, so if you're not happy with your European Commission representative, take it up with your national government. As for the member picked by other governments, well you wouldn't expect to have power over an MP that doesn't represent you.
> It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does
The European Parliament obviously does. The only reason why the UK keeps getting short changed by the European Parliament is because we keep electing idiots into power. Most because our national government like to pretend MEPs don't exist, thus doesn't educate people on the importance of MEP elections, then acts surprised when the European Parliament doesn't represent the UK population.
> If you don't think it matters that many of our population have little influence over who occupies Number 10
I think it does matter, I think it matter quite a bit. But I'm not convinced that the general public is the best body to make that choice directly. The whole point of have a representatives is that they have the time and resources to educate themselves on the minutiae of state, and make better decisions than the general public. Not because they're smarter or better, but because they're better informed.
My view on the EU debate in the UK has always boiled down to the fact the UK public has simply not bothered to engage with the democratic systems in the EU, so it's not a surprise that those systems don't represent us. The fix here was always for the UK to actually participate in the EU, not just strope, but that would require the UK national government to stop using the EU as it scapegoat for its own domestic failures. At least with Brexit the UK government won't be able to blame the EU for everything anymore, and we might actually get some competent leaders with a real vision for the UK.
The EU is currently based upon the Treaty of Lisbon [1] signed in 2007 after the referenda of 2005 for the new constitution (Spain yes, France and Netherlands nay)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
Yes, exactly. Nations gave away sovereign, constitutional powers literally after their populations boldly rejected the terms, in a fair and open democratic processes.
Other European nations, verging on 'voting no' were denied the chance precisely because the EU apparatus knew what the outcome would be.
There's basically no defence of that issue, and the patronizing arguments defending 'indirect' nature of democracy of the EU wear thin - voters have no material impact on the EU, which is how it was designed, very much on purpose.
The limitation that MEPs have no ability to introduce legislation or frankly drive any of the real legislative process is by design.
It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend an undemocratic system that their ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead. 'Reason' lasted only one generation, before ostensibly well meaning actors took away the rights of the plebes before their eyes, and convinced them that it was in their best interest.
There is obvious need for reform, and if there was, I'll bet Norway and UK would be part of it, and possibly even Switzerland.
> ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead.
Not sure how good your history is. But the EU was built by an ancestors who were fed of fighting and dying by the millions in wars that did nothing to actually improve people lives.
The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe, and given there haven't been any domestic European wars since its creation, I would say it's been pretty successful.
"The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe"
?
You do realize the EU as a body politic is very recent?
(Not sure how good your history is. ?)
1) Yes, major powers who have economically integrated tend not to fight, that's great. It's the same all over the world. The US doesn't fight Japan either.
2) Europe's true sovereign guarantor, the US and their Nuclear Umbrella, which is the other 1/2 of the equation.
'The EU' is long after the fact.
Moreover - it's besides the point - as I articulated, the EU has fundamental flaws with respect to democracy that can't be addressed with any reasonable argument it seems.
EU citizens have little to no influence over their body politic, because all the power is a few points indirection away from their reach.
Europeans were told after the election who their anointed leader would be, what her political platform was, and what her vision for the EU was.
Just consider why for a moment the EU doesn't require leaders to be publicly announced and vetted before elections? Wouldn't that be a highly rational, reasonable, and arguably necessary element for legitimate democracy?
What were EU leaders thinking when they definitely decided that this would not be required?
It's absurd.
Many citizens saw it was absurd, voted against the Constitutional Treaty, and it was passed anyhow.
> Ursula von der Leyen did not receive any votes
She was nominated by the Council of Europe (comprised of the heads of state for each of the EU nations), and confirmed by the European Parliament (which represents the European electorate).
That is a very uncharitable and weak interpretation of the grandparent. For the parliamentary elections, the bigger parties agreed to try to fix democracy deficits by promising to elect a nominated candidate (Frans Timmmermans and Manfred Weber) as president of the commission depending on which block won in parliament. Yet, after the election, in a typical EU backroom deal, von der Leyen was elected. So it is quite fair to say that no constituent voted for her in any meaningful way.
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2019-07/ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-kommissionspraesidentin-wahlsieg https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2019-07/ursula-von-der-l...
The UK has exactly the same opacity. People vote for parties, and the winning party can replace its leader at any time. Voters have exactly zero input into who is chosen. That choice is down to the party hierarchy, with some token show-voting from party members once a shortlist has been selected.
This is not true, and the most recent election in the UK is strong evidence of this.
UK voters know which parties they are voting for, their platforms, and their leaders, turnout is high, and there is general awareness of the issues.
In mostly the same way in other 'good' EU nations.
Parliament can fall if there's a lack of confidence in leadership, particularly on an important issue, in which case, there's an election. This happen with Johnson in the UK wherein there was an 'issue election' called and people were well aware of the issues.
This was actually a pretty strong and democratic process: Johnson had not been elected, so he went to the polls and people had material, meaningful input.
In proportional representation systems, leaders can change without elections as well (see: Sweden, Finland etc.) and it's not exactly perfect but it works well enough.
The 'good' European nations have pretty good democracy at the national level.
It's at the EU level that it's all Byzantine. Pun intended.
It's only opaque if you don't care enough to study the question. Ursula von der Leyen was chosen by the members of the European Council.
The European Council, among other responsibilities, "decides on the EU's overall direction and political priorities", and "nominates and appoints candidates to certain high profile EU level roles, such as the ECB and the Commission". [1] If you have to know only one thing about the EU, it's that one: power lies in the hand of the European Council.
The current members of the European Council are: Alexander De Croo for Belgium, Boyko Borisov for Bulgaria, Andrej Babiš for the Czech Republic, Mette Frederiksen for Denmark, Angela Merkel for Germany, Jüri Ratas for Estonia, Micheál Martin for Ireland, Kyriakos Mitsotakis for Greece, Pedro Sánchez for Spain, Emmanuel Macron for France, Andrej Plenković for Croatia, Giuseppe Conte for Italy, Nicos Anastasiades for Cyprus, Krišjānis Kariņš for Latvia, Gitanas Nausėda for Lithuania, Xavier Bettel for Luxembourg, Viktor Orbán for Hungary, Robert Abela for Malta, Mark Rutte for the Netherlands, Sebastian Kurz for Austria, Mateusz Morawiecki for Poland, António Costa for Portugal, Klaus Iohannis for Romania, Janez Janša for Slovenia, Igor Matovič for the Slovak Republic, Sanna Marin for Finland, and finally Stefan Löfven for Sweden.
If you don't like the direction of the EU, ask your representant to do something about it. Otherwise pick another one. They are all democratically elected (directly, or indirectly in parliamentary systems).
[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-council_en https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodie...
Of course the EU created her citizens, do you think European citizenship is some sort of fact of nature? Like people woke up in Europe in a cave and were like "Yeah of course we're cosmopolitan citizens of the United European states" ?
All the rules, all the borders, all their values have been created, quite hard earned in fact, with a lot of blood and sweat along the way I might add, even more so than at an Apple smartphone factory if you can believe it.
The difference is that Apple is not a government.
That means they are not an organization which can legally stop, detain, arrest, charge, prosecute, convict, imprison, and kill you.
EU have about much power to imprison you as Apple does, as in they can't unless they can convince the local police you have committed some crime. They lack power compared to US feds.
They’re still a collaborative governmental entity with governments enforcing its laws, so they pass muster as far as being a “State” goes, unless you want to go into specifics about the various treaties and how this is really a treaty organization and blah. In the looks, walks and quacks like a duck, with all the other ducks around treating it like a duck, it’s a bloody government with all the powers that entails, even if enforcement is a matter left to the member nations that do have all of the powers I just outlined. I actually did write recently in a HN comment outlining the difference between the EU and Feds, but in terms of power, the EU is closer to the US Federal Government than to Apple because it still has laws.
Apple is a private organization with a corporate charter, owned by shareholders, controlled by its Board of Directors and with the ability to engage in lawful business activity, with none of the powers that governments have. They don’t have jurisdiction, they have stores. They don’t make laws, they write policies. They don’t levy taxes, they trade. The fees of the App Store are a known quantity, and you can take them or leave them.
So in that light, does it still make sense to try to control Apple like a government entity or treat them like some kind of pseudo-government or rhetorically refer to their business practices using language we use to describe governments? Why do we demand so much more accountability from governments including supranational intergovernmental treaty organizations controlled by governments than we do from private shareholder owned and controlled organizations? Honestly think about it.
> The difference is that Apple is not a government
Yes, and this is a key difference between Europeans and (at least the libertarian/SV type of) Americans.
We trust governments more than corporations because governments were elected by us. It's really a difference in culture.
That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting one type of organization more than another.
I think we (Americans) don’t trust either without cause, and there’s more corporations than governments so there’s more opportunities to find corporations, actually scratch that, businesses, big or small, that we trust. But by default, I think we trust both about as far as we can throw them and businesses we do trust, maybe only slightly so and in a largely transactional manner. The question is whether we are getting value for the money, not whether the businesses and owners are trustworthy.
The difference is that in the US we don’t trust the government to the point where even though that’s the one we have more control over, we do not choose to use it against bad corporate behavior for fear that the government will do it wrong. The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to.
The other difference is that a democratic government is accountable to voters while Apple is only accountable to its shareholders.
> "The difference is that Apple is not a government."
That means they are not an organization that is accountable to the public. That means they are an organization that cares more about profit and market share, than about human/civil rights.
These are the usual arguments in defence of the EU's democratic credentials. The fundamental problem I have with them is that they don't actually meet the simple, transparent standards I set out for meaningful democratic representation.
National governments pick the members of the European Commision, so if you're not happy with your European Commission representative, take it up with your national government.
How, specifically, should someone do that in practice? Does someone cast an anonymous vote to indicate their preference? Will some robust system then make an objective determination of the outcome based on the popular vote? This is how the people customarily determine their representatives in a representative democracy.
In reality, the number of levels of indirection between you or me as ordinary people who vote in elections and Ursula von der Leyen as the most powerful person in the EU government removes any meaningful requirement for her to either achieve a popular mandate before taking office or accept any meaningful personal accountability for her performance while in office.
And more generally, European Commissioner is infamous for being a role you give a national politician who is still in favour with the leadership but perhaps has lost popular support. Just look at the past roles of the people who get nominated to these positions by their respective governments. There's an incredible number of ex-representatives, and often not ex- by choice but because the electorate chose not to re-elect them.
The European Parliament obviously does.
Not in my country. While it operates a PR system, it's a party list, so again at a minimum it fails my personal accountability criterion. The only way for the people to remove a particular individual they don't like from power is, in this case, to remove everyone from that individual's party from power in that electoral region.
In fact, this is the same basic problem with many of the situations we've been discussing here. You can in theory indirectly influence which individual holds power. The catch is that your only way to remove them is some sort of nuclear option. Don't like your nation's choice for European Commissioner? No problem, just elect a different entire national government at the last election. Don't like the UK's current PM? No problem, just make sure no-one votes for any MPs in that person's party at the last election. Don't like the current European Commission President? Sorry, I can't help you much with that one because hardly anyone (including hundreds of MEPs, by the way) actually knows how she got the job.
The whole point of have a representatives is that they have the time and resources to educate themselves on the minutiae of state, and make better decisions than the general public. Not because they're smarter or better, but because they're better informed.
Again, so the theory goes. But as someone who has interacted with various MPs personally, and through them also with senior figures in government on a few occasions, I can promise you that it is a work of fiction in practice.
Just look at the nonsense MPs on both sides of the Brexit debate were shouting from the rooftops before the referendum. Or for something a little less inflammatory, try the arguments they've made about regulating business and technology, including in the EU measures we're discussing here and the roughly analogous UK plans also announced today. Those weren't the arguments of well-informed experts who have studied the issues and drawn rational conclusions. In many cases, they weren't even the arguments of a moderately well-informed member of the general public. And they were statements not just from elected representatives but often from senior government figures!
The truth is that there is absolutely nothing about our current system of government that requires our MPs to be qualified to make or capable of making better decisions than members of the public who are well-informed about and personally interested in any particular issue. Even those who are intelligent and trying to do a good job, as I'm sure many MPs actually are despite all the negative press they get, can't possibly become experts on everything and don't have the resources to staff it out. And even on issues they do choose to prioritise, unless they are members of the party in power and take a government position with all the strings that are attached to doing so, their power to influence policy is often very limited even when acting in quite large groups.
And the same is true of most other elected representatives and political appointments, whether in the UK or EU. This isn't about Brexit, or about being pro- or anti-EU, if that even means anything anyway. It's a problem with systems of government operating at national and international levels where those in power are so well insulated from the voting public that they don't require a popular mandate and aren't required to be accountable to the people for whom they supposedly act. That's not democracy, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
The UK public has been told very little about the EU. There's very little local European news in the British media, and what does appear is often jokey and condescending or slanted in a negative.
A snowstorm in the US will get significant coverage, but an equivalent major weather event in France and Germany won't.
The reality is the British Establishment simply doesn't understand Europe as a social and political project. It has no clue what consensus building, social responsibility, and political integration are for, and simply sees the EU - at least, saw the EU - as an exploitable if rather shifty trading partner.
Now the EU is a competitor, the US has limited interest in the UK, the former commonwealth countries have been looking elsewhere, and the UK's rather minimal level of independent leverage is about to become very obvious.
"Erm yes. A large group of citizen can apply pressure to its local government to push for change in the EU, they can also to the same via MEP elections. "
This is obviously false, it has never happened in the history of the EU - just the opposite - citizens literally voted overwhelmingly against major treaties, and they were passed anyhow.
Explain to us right now how major nations voted against the Treaty of Lisbon, and it was enacted anyhow?
"It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does
The European Parliament obviously does. "
It obviously doe not, the evidence is clear: MEPs don't even have the right to introduce legislation, they don't chose or censure their leaders, they have almost no power at all.
"thus doesn't educate people on the importance of MEP elections, then acts surprised when the European Parliament doesn't represent the UK population."
Again, completely baseless claims. The level of awareness of MEP involvement is similarly low in other countries.
"My view on the EU debate in the UK has always boiled down to the fact the UK public has simply not bothered to engage with the democratic systems in the EU"
No - there is no meaningful way for individual citizens or groups to engage with on the EU level, by reason of scale and design, it was never meant to be that way.
Ask yourself the question:
+ Why can MEPs not introduce legislation?
+ Why can MEPs not meaningfully censure leaders?
+ Why can MEPs, the only elected officials, not chose the leadership cadre?
+ Why is election turnout a paltry 45%
Those were concrete, well designed choices, and the lack of democracy embodied in those choices was purposeful.
The EU was specifically designed with a democracy deficit to keep the plebes and populism at bay.
Those who defend the system are either ignorant of the reality of it, like Chinese commoners defending their President Xi on the basis of 'security and prosperity' - or they know the Machiavellian roots of the decisions and are just unwilling to admit it.
Pro EU people are so often unwilling to engage in any way in the issue, they're like Trumpers or the more hardcore patriotic America types who see no wrong or nuance in American foreign policy example.
It's like a cult.
> Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
In theory, yes. But it would take a huge group of people. Which is practically impossible these days.
So you are right, there is a serious deficit of democracy, not only in the EU, but everywhere imo.
I realised after I wrote my original comment that I forgot to add a rider along the lines of "without causing profound and possibly unwanted side effects", which is often the fundamental problem with having indirectly elected (aka appointed without a popular vote) people in positions of power.
And you're right, this is a very widespread problem today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the issue and challenge the status quo where opportunities present, of course.
> It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend an undemocratic system that their ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead.
It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel. Compared to their ancestors who literally sacrificed millions of people fighting over each square millimiter of land for centuries on end.
> There is obvious need for reform, and if there was, I'll bet Norway and UK would be part of it, and possibly even Switzerland.
Norway and Switzerland are not part of EU [1]. UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU.
[1] They are a part of the Schengen Area and various other treaties. They are, however, tightly integrated into the EU and are basically bound by most of EU's laws.
"It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel."
A little bit like a Chinese citizen, defending their lack of democracy 'because 7% growth every year and stability!'.
Not only are things things 1) possible without the EU, 2) they were mostly put in place long before the body politic existed (the EEC is a primary driver of the above) 3) it has nothing to do with the democracy deficit.
"UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU."
The UK has not 'severed all ties' ... but, are you truly asking how it's possible for a sovereign nation to function without the EU?
How does Australia function?
How does Japan function?
?
They will all get along mostly fine.
Again - none of the arguments given point to any reasonable underlying motivation for denying EU citizens the right to chose their leaders.
--> EU citizens are denied the right to vet, or vote for the leaders and their platforms, their elected officials cannot enact legislation, and their ability to censure the non-elected leaders (this is maybe the most important power) is basically non-existent.
It's an existential problem.
> How does Australia function?
By mining huge amounts of raw resources and selling to their near by neighbours as well as the rest of the world.
The U.K. doesn’t have access to any useful raw materials apart from perhaps coal.
> How does Japan function?
Through massive government borrowing. Their debt is 223% of GDP. Now it hasn’t really bitten them yet, but it’s increasingly looking like it’s gonna be a serious problem for them.
I’m not either of those options is something I would pick for the U.K.
> A little bit like a Chinese citizen
Yes, a bit. A very tiny bit. And your inability to empathise with these people is telling.
> The UK has not 'severed all ties' ... but, are you truly asking how it's possible for a sovereign nation to function without the EU?
By spending decades building relationships with other countries.
The EU is UK's largest trading partner. It is a huge common market with no borders, barriers, or tariffs. The EU has trade agreements with over a hundred countries that all members benefit from. Including, yes, Australia and Japan.
By severing ties the UK establishes a barrier between itself and EU common market, it exits all trade agreements between EU and other countries, and so on and so forth. It will be decades before the UK re-establishes similar deals.
> EU citizens are denied the right to vet, or vote for the leaders and their platforms
Just a few years ago I voted in EU parliamentary elections. That doesn't sound like "denied the right to vet or vote".
This right here is the difference. In the US we treat the government just like every other corporation. We expect it to screw us over and that we have no control over it and it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Between that and identity politics becoming the main issue voters vote on and we have a recipe for the government becoming self-executing power vehicles just like Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, etc. There is no by the people, for the people currently.
Re. effectiveness, see below. The EU has imposed a large number of regulations, some quite severe like the GDPR, and yet it didn’t fall apart. Not saying the GDPR is good as implemented or anything, just that despite its flaws it didn’t kill the economy or the EU, the perennial fear of right wing fear mongers.
> Between that and identity politics becoming the main issue voters vote on and we have a recipe for the government becoming self-executing power vehicles just like Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, etc. There is no by the people, for the people currently.
I think you’re mixing cause and effect here. The government is a vehicle of power because it has power vested in it and it represents people who wield that power.
Voting is one such power, we vote on laws, sheriffs, representatives at many levels, senators, district attorneys, even for some damned foolish reason, judges. Not just POTUS. Whatever government we have at any point in time is pretty much the government we deserve because we put it there with our choices.
It’s naïve to think power will not be exploited though, and because the difference between the lawful powers of a government and the lawful powers of a private company are so vast and disparate, we’re a lot more concerned with curbing government power.
Any elected official is a person, not a mindless automaton, and people have interests which they can and do put above the public good almost all the time. It’s the exception when they do not, not the rule, even when it is only their own family. If an elected official or a bureaucrat employed by them can use the knowledge and experience and power they have to save a member of their own family or protect them, they bloody will. Similarly many will find ways to profit from their positions, I don’t know why we expect they won’t.
But hey, maybe all the elected officials and bureaucrats of the EU and it’s member nations are actually Angels sent down from Heaven to show the world how it is done. Great if that’s the case, but I wouldn’t put money on that.
Even when elected officials are not involved, people vote for bad laws all the time. California is one such place, San Francisco is another. We have the power to hang ourselves here, and we exercise that right regularly. It gets even worse because elected officials have realized they can punt anything remotely controversial onto the ballot box rather than exercise discretion and judgement in their own decision making, because doing so would make them accountable to their constituents.
Arbitrary? Size correlates directly to power, monetary power, platform power. If size was arbitrary and meritless then why there are regulations on antitrust that are basically based on size of market capture?
This is a baseless statement...
You started by comparing Apple to a government. The difference is that the government represents you, while Apple represents their share holders.
Of course my local coffeeshop also represents their owner (no idea if they have share holders), so what's the difference with Apple? Size. I don't know what your local coffeeshop is like, but mine is not a trillion dollar company. Apple is. And Apple's products are used by millions of people all over the world. That means Apple wields a lot of power. They may not be able to lock you in prison, but they are able to block or restrict your usage of your electronic devices. They have a lot of power over other companies that want to provide services through those devices.
And without regulation, all of that power is unchecked; they wield that power for the profit of their shareholders, not for the public good. They have in the past harmed users and companies because Apple saw a way to make more money by monopolising certain functionality.
All businesses have owners, with equity as a proxy for who owns how much. A coffee shop might have one equity holder or it might have a dozen or it might be Starbucks with as many shareholders as they have. As far as the difference goes, it is the difference between an S-Corp or a C-Corp and each has their own tax advantages and disadvantages from a tax perspective.
Each has one thing in common though: if you don’t like their crap, you don’t buy it. If the coffee sucks or you can’t install the software you want, you buy something else. Apple’s power is over the products they sold and the services they continue to provide after the purchase. You can install any kind of software that you can get working, what Apple doesn’t do is promise any kind of support for getting every type of software to run on the products they sold, nor are they obligated to. Those are the terms, they are fairly well known, you can take that information with you into the marketplace and choose from what’s available or try to scrape something together that will do the same thing from parts. Might not be as nice as Apple’s stuff, but it will have as much capability as you put into it.
I seriously don’t get the siren song of regulation as it is sung here. I see value in some laws, I don’t see value in laws as a reaction to every move a corporation makes to try to bend them to the public’s will. Corporations aren’t people, but they represent the private interests, time and money of real people, but that concept seems so abstract to people that they can treat large organizations as public bodies with all the responsibilities of something that has much more power over their lives and many more people under their employ which can abuse that power when in reality, Apple has no more power over your life than your coffee shop, just whatever power you choose to give it.
> You started by comparing Apple to a government.
I know these threads can run long and it is easy to list the thread but here is what I originally responded to:
>> Another interesting tidbit is the answer to the common trope that 'private platform can act as they wish since they are private' :
> Now the EU is saying the same thing to Apple. It is their market, and they dictate the rules. Which is perhaps a taste of Apple's own medicine?
> I wonder what those people who keep saying it is Apple's platform they can do what ever they want had to say?
I didn’t like the mindset this commentary reflected, in particular the idea that the EU or any of its member nations “own their markets” the way Apple owns the App Store, because that is dangerously close to saying governments own people. Markets are reflective of the individual choices of people. You can own the NASDAQ, but you can’t own the people trading on the NASDAQ and you don’t own the companies listed on the NASDAQ merely by owning the NASDAQ, but you can set the criteria by which you list companies on the NASDAQ.
A nation can have jurisdiction over its internal market, businesses, a place where their laws are enforced, and don’t get me wrong, their laws, good or bad, are still their laws. I won’t dispute that, but having jurisdiction is not the same as ownership, and the market is some kind of central body or organization you can own, it’s all the people in a market who trade with all the other people in a market, whether that market is a dozen people or all the people in the world.