4 ms·

To quote the original article : "platforms with a market capitalization of €75 billion or turnover in the European Economic Area equal to or above €7.5 billion"

To quote the original article : "platforms with a market capitalization of €75 billion or turnover in the European Economic Area equal to or above €7.5 billion" I'm not sure what the current market cap for Signal is, but I'm fairly sure they don't have a turnover of 7+bn in the EU.

GuB-42 5y ago
Ok, I didn't realize that. Signal may not even have a financial presence in the EU. In the US, according the Wikipedia, they have ~$20M in revenue, many orders of magnitude off... It is also one of these weird non-profit + for-profit company mix, to which I don't know the effect it has. Anyways, the numbers are simply not there. Ironically, if the law works as intended, making all major messaging platforms interoperable, if can make smaller players who don't want to join the club (like Signal) less attractive.
gorgoiler 5y ago
It doesn’t seem moral to do this on revenue. The only thing that should matter to regulators is the active-users metric, as a percentage of the population. Doing it by money seems like sour grapes. You succeeded in the free market so we’re going to hamper your progress.
- piaste 5y ago
  "Active users" is a metric that is: (a) somewhat tricky to define with legislative-grade rigour, and much more importantly: (b) only measurable by the very same entities who would be subject to this regulation Were it not for the problem of measurement, I would agree that it would be a better proxy for "needs regulation" than market cap. EDIT: On second thought, I don't even think that's true. Imagine a networking app that absolutely dominates a small but highly profitable and societally / strategically important sector, such as medicine or law. That company could have relatively few users as a % of the population, but still have enough of a warchest to hobble most potential competitors, and to have undue influence in wider society thanks to its control of critical sectors. Going by market cap doesn't measure a company's pervasiveness, but it measures its sheer economic power.

GuB-42 5y ago

Ok, I didn't realize that. Signal may not even have a financial presence in the EU. In the US, according the Wikipedia, they have ~$20M in revenue, many orders of magnitude off... It is also one of these weird non-profit + for-profit company mix, to which I don't know the effect it has. Anyways, the numbers are simply not there. Ironically, if the law works as intended, making all major messaging platforms interoperable, if can make smaller players who don't want to join the club (like Signal) less attractive.

gorgoiler 5y ago

It doesn’t seem moral to do this on revenue. The only thing that should matter to regulators is the active-users metric, as a percentage of the population. Doing it by money seems like sour grapes. You succeeded in the free market so we’re going to hamper your progress.

piaste 5y ago
"Active users" is a metric that is: (a) somewhat tricky to define with legislative-grade rigour, and much more importantly: (b) only measurable by the very same entities who would be subject to this regulation Were it not for the problem of measurement, I would agree that it would be a better proxy for "needs regulation" than market cap. EDIT: On second thought, I don't even think that's true. Imagine a networking app that absolutely dominates a small but highly profitable and societally / strategically important sector, such as medicine or law. That company could have relatively few users as a % of the population, but still have enough of a warchest to hobble most potential competitors, and to have undue influence in wider society thanks to its control of critical sectors. Going by market cap doesn't measure a company's pervasiveness, but it measures its sheer economic power.