3 ms·

That’s the political pitch. It’s really just the EU trying to challenge the economic dominance of US tech companies. Tariffs and trade barriers are unpopular, a

That’s the political pitch. It’s really just the EU trying to challenge the economic dominance of US tech companies. Tariffs and trade barriers are unpopular, and people who implement them are supposedly very bad. But privacy regulation and huge fines for big tech are very popular, and the people who implement them are supposedly very good. When people see the fines given out I think they presume the regulations are achieving their publicly stated purpose, but really all they are is tariffs in disguise.

bilbo0s 6y ago
Not only the EU. Asian giants as well. You're even seeing African nations latch on to "balkanization" as a method of both keeping control of their citizens' exposure to information, and addressing their problem with youth unemployment. I think in the future there will definitely be regional internets so to speak. You will still be able to talk to people via the boring protocols, like email for instance. But a lot of people are seeing the enormous value in controlling higher level access. News, social media, etc etc.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  The parallels to Asia are very accurate. Which does seem to be where a lot of counties are heading. Perhaps soon, most of the world will be as good at controlling misinformation as China is.
- 8note 6y ago
  You can consider the US as well, with the take down requests that you're not allowed to talk about due to "national security"
fnord123 6y ago
Requirements that data must be handled in a certain way is akin to requirements that electronics have no lead in them and that cars emit only a certain amount of toxic fumes and that cattle aren't addled with too much HGH. If you see no value in the regulations then you might see it as you have. But in reality the regulations are valuable and that is why you see the different reactions.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. It’s arguable been most successful in Access to Data area, and to some extend Data Erasure. But the Consent and Documentation provisions are a complete joke. Most EU data subjects have no idea who’s holding their data, or how/why they have access to it. The only area it’s been truly successful in has been levying fines against foreign companies and restricting access to the EU market. It’s a very successful piece of tariff legislation. Because the compliance strategy from most organizations was either stop trading in the EU, or accept the fines as a cost of business. (edit: there's also a 3rd common compliance strategy, which is just to pretend that since you're not specifically targeting EU data subjects, that you don't have to comply. I believe this is part of the reason that HN ignores the GDPR for instance)
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    >"that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes" Russian regulation against corruption has not achieved the intended outcomes, therefore they should have no regulation against corruption at all?
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      I won’t comment on Russian corruption laws, since I don’t know anything about them. However I do know that the only factor that the stated purpose of any piece of legislation/regulation will influence is public perception of it. The stated purpose of a law has no influence at all over its practical impact. The impact of the GDPR has largely been to establish trade barriers, and it has had a very minimal impact on privacy. Given they have largely failed to achieve their stated goal, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to see the EU imposing further regulation on online services/information distribution. However it makes perfect sense when you look at what they actually accomplish. Which is implementing (rather controversial) economic protectionist policies, under the guise of something unrelated and far less controversial. To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it.
X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
> Tariffs and trade barriers are unpopular, and people who implement them are supposedly very bad. Have you been watching the last four years?
lazyjones 6y ago
The EU is either just pretending to do so or doing a very bad job. They've accomplished nothing, except force everyone (not just Big Tech) to put annoying (and increasingly so) cookie banners on their websites and users have to endure them.

bilbo0s 6y ago

Not only the EU. Asian giants as well. You're even seeing African nations latch on to "balkanization" as a method of both keeping control of their citizens' exposure to information, and addressing their problem with youth unemployment. I think in the future there will definitely be regional internets so to speak. You will still be able to talk to people via the boring protocols, like email for instance. But a lot of people are seeing the enormous value in controlling higher level access. News, social media, etc etc.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
The parallels to Asia are very accurate. Which does seem to be where a lot of counties are heading. Perhaps soon, most of the world will be as good at controlling misinformation as China is.
8note 6y ago
You can consider the US as well, with the take down requests that you're not allowed to talk about due to "national security"

fnord123 6y ago

Requirements that data must be handled in a certain way is akin to requirements that electronics have no lead in them and that cars emit only a certain amount of toxic fumes and that cattle aren't addled with too much HGH. If you see no value in the regulations then you might see it as you have. But in reality the regulations are valuable and that is why you see the different reactions.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. It’s arguable been most successful in Access to Data area, and to some extend Data Erasure. But the Consent and Documentation provisions are a complete joke. Most EU data subjects have no idea who’s holding their data, or how/why they have access to it. The only area it’s been truly successful in has been levying fines against foreign companies and restricting access to the EU market. It’s a very successful piece of tariff legislation. Because the compliance strategy from most organizations was either stop trading in the EU, or accept the fines as a cost of business. (edit: there's also a 3rd common compliance strategy, which is just to pretend that since you're not specifically targeting EU data subjects, that you don't have to comply. I believe this is part of the reason that HN ignores the GDPR for instance)
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  >"that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes" Russian regulation against corruption has not achieved the intended outcomes, therefore they should have no regulation against corruption at all?
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    I won’t comment on Russian corruption laws, since I don’t know anything about them. However I do know that the only factor that the stated purpose of any piece of legislation/regulation will influence is public perception of it. The stated purpose of a law has no influence at all over its practical impact. The impact of the GDPR has largely been to establish trade barriers, and it has had a very minimal impact on privacy. Given they have largely failed to achieve their stated goal, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to see the EU imposing further regulation on online services/information distribution. However it makes perfect sense when you look at what they actually accomplish. Which is implementing (rather controversial) economic protectionist policies, under the guise of something unrelated and far less controversial. To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it.

X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago

> Tariffs and trade barriers are unpopular, and people who implement them are supposedly very bad. Have you been watching the last four years?

lazyjones 6y ago

The EU is either just pretending to do so or doing a very bad job. They've accomplished nothing, except force everyone (not just Big Tech) to put annoying (and increasingly so) cookie banners on their websites and users have to endure them.