5 ms·

Okay, so why is the EU seemingly able to regulate big tech? It's a capitalist continent.

truckerbill 4y ago
Less lobbying focus (though probably still a lot)? Protectionism (big tech is USA born)? Elites are old money not new? No tax income (probably this)?
- fallingknife 4y ago
  > Elites are old money not new This is the big one right here. Europe has pretty much missed the boat on tech so its elites are from older industries that tech is starting to compete with. You can see this same dynamic here in the US as the legacy media has declared war on the tech industry for threatening its power.
Cipater 4y ago
Because big tech is mainly foreign (American) companies to them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
refurb 4y ago
Because it’s politically expedient for them? Notice how China has no trouble regulating US tech either?
jltsiren 4y ago
The primary purpose of the EU is administering a common market that consists of a large number of sovereign states. Each state naturally wants to be protectionist and give domestic businesses advantages over those from other member states. The EU can't allow that, as it would destroy the common market. As a consequence, the EU has a lot of experience in pushing against powerful interests. It's doing that all the time, and it's also moderately successful at that. While many attempts at regulating giant businesses or forcing member states to do something they don't want ultimately fail, sometimes the EU manages to get things done.
jmyeet 4y ago
There are several reasons. 1. Many parts of Europe still have a strong labor movement. This is the only effective counterbalance to corporate power in politics. The US has what may be the lowest rate of union coverage in the OECD (~10%) and most of that is police and teacher unions; 2. Europe by and large is not hypercapitalist like the US is. The normal is social democracy, which is still fundamentally capitalist but way less extreme; 3. Religion. Different European countries have more or less mostly Christian influence but that influence is way less militant. White evangelicalism and its effect ofn politics is more akin to wahhabism in Saudi Arabia. It's also hyper-capitalist; 4. The election process itself in European countries isn't generally political. US states often have the Secretary of State in charge of elections and that's a political office. Redistricting is inherently political. Other countries don't do this. Electoral boundaries are more often drawn by an independent organization; 5. Europe doesn't suffer from the "money = speech" falsehood; and 6. Europe still has the recent memory of two World Wars and the HOlocaust that favors cooperation over division.
- vannevar 4y ago
  #5 here should be #1, by a mile. Here in Texas, Google is carpet-bombing local TV with ads blasting the bipartisan AIAOC as an attack on American technology by "tha lib'rals," cynically exploiting the political division to scare off Republican votes. They're laundering their money through the Koch brothers' Taxpayer's Protection Alliance. The ads might be a little less effective if they ended with a big "paid for by Google" banner and voice-over.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  For #1 an additional stumbling block for the labor movement is that it's rather difficult to create a limited-liability labor cooperative in the US. For-profit LLCs have legal advantages over other non-profit corporate forms. I suspect if someone tried to make something equivalent to Mondragon in the US, they'd have problems just maintaining the corporate veil and their workers would get crushed under the maddening hellscape that is consumer product liability. #3 doesn't pass the sniff test to me: Europe has it's Christian Wahhabists, too. Hungary and Poland broke the backs of their democracies even faster than the US is, in the name of banning gay people, and they've cooperated to break the EU sanctions mechanism that was supposed to keep them from doing this. Also #5 is wrong - or, at least, not properly root-caused. "Money-equals-speech" is itself a result of free-speech extremism. If we say the government can't regulate speech, then a way around that is to regulate money spent to speak. Let's say Ron DeSantis wants to ban gay advocacy - but the 1st Amendment says "hell no". Instead he gets a bill passed that bans spending money to purchase pride flags, buying paper to print books with gay characters in them, buying billboards with pro-LGBT messaging, or TV ad spots with the same. It's very difficult to not read this as a speech-restricting bill. The argument in Citizens' United - the money-equals-speech case - was that even a content-neutral funding cap was an infringement of free speech. The government can't mandate that all politicians whisper, after all. Except now we have a fundraising war because every politician needs to shout as loudly as possible. And to do that you need lots of money. The US Supreme Court didn't invent "money-equals-speech", it's just a fact of how political speech works. Europe does not have this problem because Europe is willing to entertain restrictions on political speech that the US considers unconscionable. Several EU member states have constitutional bans on fascism and hate speech[0], for example. You could never get away with that in the US for any reason. Freedom of speech is not entirely unprotected in the EU, of course - the protections are just more reasoned and considered than the blunt instrument of "Congress shall make no law". I'm not sure about #6 either. Did America not get involved in WWII? I mean, we did try to cover up the Holocaust[1] early on and we got involved later than Europe, but it's just as culturally engrained here as it presumably is over there. [0] Which, BTW, should be considered as censorious in and of themselves. Any political ideology which calls for the killing of specific groups of people is engaging in censorship. [1] Specifically: FDR knew about it early on; and the New York Times buried it many pages deep because they were shy about being a "Jewish newspaper".
adrr 4y ago
Because they are US companies. Which is the main reason the US won't regulate them. EU is all about being anti-competitive, look at Airbus, InBev or LVMH. As long as it's their own companies being anti-competitive. Apple isn't even the market leader in EU, and EU is going to regulate them. That is anti-competitive. Let's go regulate the 2nd place company.
- ls15 4y ago
  > Apple isn't even the market leader in EU, and EU is going to regulate them. They have a monopoly on iphones.
  - seneca 4y ago
    By this logic every company is a monopoly, as they have a monopoly on their own product.
    - ls15 4y ago
      Most other products cannot run apps. There is no alternative supplier of iOS devices so that people can run the apps that they bought from other companies via the Appstore.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Generally because the EU Parliament is far less corrupt than the US Congress. The US is more of a "corporatocracy" than a real democracy these days. Congress is even incapable of impeaching a president that tried to overturn an election by force. That's a pretty embarassing state of affairs for American democracy.
- satyrnein 4y ago
  What's the corporate interest in impeaching Trump or not? I think that has less to do with corporations and more to do with Republican politicians (correctly) concluding that their Republican voters don't want Trump impeached.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    That is also a form of corruption though. Voter sentiment shouldn't be prioritised over protecting democracy and the constitution.
    - mythrwy 4y ago
      I'm always confused when I see people say (to paraphrase) "We need to protect democracy so the hell with what the voters think!". How exactly does that logic work?
      - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
        In the same way when you sit down to play a boardgame with someone and they draw extra cards, fudge die rolls, and flip over the table when a turn goes against them: they're no longer playing the agreed-on game at that point, and you and the other players don't have to accept their behavior as part of the play. There is a baseline set of rules (in the USA we have the Constitution) for how the game works. Like a person's freedom to swing their arm, a voter's freedom on what to vote for must stop at the limit of the other voters' rights. The "Tyranny of the Majority" is a related concept as well.
onepointsixC 4y ago
Because big tech is overwhelmingly not European, thus there's little blow back to trade actions. Suggest a policy that may harm the balance sheet of the German Automotive sector and you'll see it killed on the spot.
- malermeister 4y ago
  That's demonstrably wrong: https://www.motor1.com/news/595006/european-union-agrees-combustion-engine-ban-2035/ https://www.motor1.com/news/595006/european-union-agrees-com...
  - schumpeter 4y ago
    To the parent’s point, VW was saying for recent years they were going fully electric. This EU bill doesn’t harm them. In fact, it likely helps them against slower-moving competitors.
    - malermeister 4y ago
      It might not hurt VW, but the EUs automotive industry is more than just VW. A lot of it is very specialized suppliers to bigger companies that do stuff like the best gear box etc. Those will be hurt for sure.
  - ls15 4y ago
    Does banning new combustion engines after 2035 really harm the manufacturers? To me it looks like they are all moving to electric.
    - malermeister 4y ago
      A lot of the industry is suppliers to manufacturers, not just manufacturers themselves. Those will be hurt for sure as their whole business model is being the best at some specialized part of a combustion car.

Less lobbying focus (though probably still a lot)? Protectionism (big tech is USA born)? Elites are old money not new? No tax income (probably this)?

fallingknife 4y ago
> Elites are old money not new This is the big one right here. Europe has pretty much missed the boat on tech so its elites are from older industries that tech is starting to compete with. You can see this same dynamic here in the US as the legacy media has declared war on the tech industry for threatening its power.

Cipater 4y ago

Because big tech is mainly foreign (American) companies to them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

refurb 4y ago

Because it’s politically expedient for them? Notice how China has no trouble regulating US tech either?

jltsiren 4y ago

The primary purpose of the EU is administering a common market that consists of a large number of sovereign states. Each state naturally wants to be protectionist and give domestic businesses advantages over those from other member states. The EU can't allow that, as it would destroy the common market. As a consequence, the EU has a lot of experience in pushing against powerful interests. It's doing that all the time, and it's also moderately successful at that. While many attempts at regulating giant businesses or forcing member states to do something they don't want ultimately fail, sometimes the EU manages to get things done.

jmyeet 4y ago

There are several reasons. 1. Many parts of Europe still have a strong labor movement. This is the only effective counterbalance to corporate power in politics. The US has what may be the lowest rate of union coverage in the OECD (~10%) and most of that is police and teacher unions; 2. Europe by and large is not hypercapitalist like the US is. The normal is social democracy, which is still fundamentally capitalist but way less extreme; 3. Religion. Different European countries have more or less mostly Christian influence but that influence is way less militant. White evangelicalism and its effect ofn politics is more akin to wahhabism in Saudi Arabia. It's also hyper-capitalist; 4. The election process itself in European countries isn't generally political. US states often have the Secretary of State in charge of elections and that's a political office. Redistricting is inherently political. Other countries don't do this. Electoral boundaries are more often drawn by an independent organization; 5. Europe doesn't suffer from the "money = speech" falsehood; and 6. Europe still has the recent memory of two World Wars and the HOlocaust that favors cooperation over division.

vannevar 4y ago
#5 here should be #1, by a mile. Here in Texas, Google is carpet-bombing local TV with ads blasting the bipartisan AIAOC as an attack on American technology by "tha lib'rals," cynically exploiting the political division to scare off Republican votes. They're laundering their money through the Koch brothers' Taxpayer's Protection Alliance. The ads might be a little less effective if they ended with a big "paid for by Google" banner and voice-over.
kmeisthax 4y ago
For #1 an additional stumbling block for the labor movement is that it's rather difficult to create a limited-liability labor cooperative in the US. For-profit LLCs have legal advantages over other non-profit corporate forms. I suspect if someone tried to make something equivalent to Mondragon in the US, they'd have problems just maintaining the corporate veil and their workers would get crushed under the maddening hellscape that is consumer product liability. #3 doesn't pass the sniff test to me: Europe has it's Christian Wahhabists, too. Hungary and Poland broke the backs of their democracies even faster than the US is, in the name of banning gay people, and they've cooperated to break the EU sanctions mechanism that was supposed to keep them from doing this. Also #5 is wrong - or, at least, not properly root-caused. "Money-equals-speech" is itself a result of free-speech extremism. If we say the government can't regulate speech, then a way around that is to regulate money spent to speak. Let's say Ron DeSantis wants to ban gay advocacy - but the 1st Amendment says "hell no". Instead he gets a bill passed that bans spending money to purchase pride flags, buying paper to print books with gay characters in them, buying billboards with pro-LGBT messaging, or TV ad spots with the same. It's very difficult to not read this as a speech-restricting bill. The argument in Citizens' United - the money-equals-speech case - was that even a content-neutral funding cap was an infringement of free speech. The government can't mandate that all politicians whisper, after all. Except now we have a fundraising war because every politician needs to shout as loudly as possible. And to do that you need lots of money. The US Supreme Court didn't invent "money-equals-speech", it's just a fact of how political speech works. Europe does not have this problem because Europe is willing to entertain restrictions on political speech that the US considers unconscionable. Several EU member states have constitutional bans on fascism and hate speech[0], for example. You could never get away with that in the US for any reason. Freedom of speech is not entirely unprotected in the EU, of course - the protections are just more reasoned and considered than the blunt instrument of "Congress shall make no law". I'm not sure about #6 either. Did America not get involved in WWII? I mean, we did try to cover up the Holocaust[1] early on and we got involved later than Europe, but it's just as culturally engrained here as it presumably is over there. [0] Which, BTW, should be considered as censorious in and of themselves. Any political ideology which calls for the killing of specific groups of people is engaging in censorship. [1] Specifically: FDR knew about it early on; and the New York Times buried it many pages deep because they were shy about being a "Jewish newspaper".

adrr 4y ago

Because they are US companies. Which is the main reason the US won't regulate them. EU is all about being anti-competitive, look at Airbus, InBev or LVMH. As long as it's their own companies being anti-competitive. Apple isn't even the market leader in EU, and EU is going to regulate them. That is anti-competitive. Let's go regulate the 2nd place company.

ls15 4y ago
> Apple isn't even the market leader in EU, and EU is going to regulate them. They have a monopoly on iphones.
- seneca 4y ago
  By this logic every company is a monopoly, as they have a monopoly on their own product.
  - ls15 4y ago
    Most other products cannot run apps. There is no alternative supplier of iOS devices so that people can run the apps that they bought from other companies via the Appstore.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

Generally because the EU Parliament is far less corrupt than the US Congress. The US is more of a "corporatocracy" than a real democracy these days. Congress is even incapable of impeaching a president that tried to overturn an election by force. That's a pretty embarassing state of affairs for American democracy.

satyrnein 4y ago
What's the corporate interest in impeaching Trump or not? I think that has less to do with corporations and more to do with Republican politicians (correctly) concluding that their Republican voters don't want Trump impeached.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  That is also a form of corruption though. Voter sentiment shouldn't be prioritised over protecting democracy and the constitution.
  - mythrwy 4y ago
    I'm always confused when I see people say (to paraphrase) "We need to protect democracy so the hell with what the voters think!". How exactly does that logic work?
    - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
      In the same way when you sit down to play a boardgame with someone and they draw extra cards, fudge die rolls, and flip over the table when a turn goes against them: they're no longer playing the agreed-on game at that point, and you and the other players don't have to accept their behavior as part of the play. There is a baseline set of rules (in the USA we have the Constitution) for how the game works. Like a person's freedom to swing their arm, a voter's freedom on what to vote for must stop at the limit of the other voters' rights. The "Tyranny of the Majority" is a related concept as well.

onepointsixC 4y ago

Because big tech is overwhelmingly not European, thus there's little blow back to trade actions. Suggest a policy that may harm the balance sheet of the German Automotive sector and you'll see it killed on the spot.

malermeister 4y ago
That's demonstrably wrong: https://www.motor1.com/news/595006/european-union-agrees-combustion-engine-ban-2035/ https://www.motor1.com/news/595006/european-union-agrees-com...
- schumpeter 4y ago
  To the parent’s point, VW was saying for recent years they were going fully electric. This EU bill doesn’t harm them. In fact, it likely helps them against slower-moving competitors.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    It might not hurt VW, but the EUs automotive industry is more than just VW. A lot of it is very specialized suppliers to bigger companies that do stuff like the best gear box etc. Those will be hurt for sure.
- ls15 4y ago
  Does banning new combustion engines after 2035 really harm the manufacturers? To me it looks like they are all moving to electric.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    A lot of the industry is suppliers to manufacturers, not just manufacturers themselves. Those will be hurt for sure as their whole business model is being the best at some specialized part of a combustion car.