6 ms·

I do not think it's remotely fair to Google to be angry at them for following EU laws.

mellosouls 3y ago
Are you being sarcastic or trolling? Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region, which is rather different to "following" it - and if indicating an intentional direction, pretty much a disgrace for a flagship tech company - so let's hope it's just temporary poor performance (or charitably, a staggered release) unrepresentative of their intentions going forward.
- sclarisse 3y ago
  They’re complying by not offering the product. Makes sense to me. It’s a free product. Any effort spent making it compliant is an expense not paid for. Any non compliance is a business risk, with a percent of global revenue at stake. Why take that risk for no benefit? Maybe once they have a revenue model for it and find it profitable things will change. Until then the GDPR is not the essence of all that is good in the world such that only the wicked heathens would dare not pay it homage. That’s imperialistic moralizing of the sort which at this point belongs in the dustbin of history along with Europe’s other collective efforts in the area.
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    No, the imperialistic moralising is thinking a corporation gets to make the rules over democratic institutions.
    - _Wintermute 3y ago
      If you consistently fine a company for breaking your rules, you can't then demand access to their products that might break your rules.
      - mellosouls 3y ago
        Maybe they shouldn't break the rules instead?
        zwily 3y ago
        There are a couple ways to do that. One is by not offering the product.
        bioemerl 3y ago
        The EU is not within their right to regulate products made by Americans companies sold to Americans. If we want to talk imperialism, this is exactly that sort of overreach.
        mellosouls 3y ago
        That's a related but different point to here, it's not a counter argument.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      How do you reason? Google decided to follow the EU rules by not offering the service there.
  - Xcelerate 3y ago
    This makes complete sense to me. Amazing that a company is getting criticism for not making a product available. One thing I’ve learned from HN over the years is that people are going to be mad and criticize you regardless of what you do, so just do what you want anyway and ignore the criticism. I really don’t like the way a lot of big corporations are handling things recently (especially with regard to layoffs and RTO), but I’m also not surprised that overly critical feedback by anonymous commenters on HN has little effect on changing people’s minds.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      There is this very strong thread here that a large US company has some moral imperative to offer a (free for now) product/service in the EU by people who presumably would not make the same case for China, much less Russia.
  - bertil 3y ago
    The appropriate reaction is probably the same as if you hear that a brand of snacks is not legal to sell as food in the EU. You probably want to investigate. EU is many things and has some wacky laws (check Northern Ireland), but if a digital service is breaking EU law, they are likely doing something you do not want them to do.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      There are lots of agricultural goods not available in the states that are available in Europe, and vice versa. Few people take that as a signal that there is some danger in those products (well, except those chocolate eggs with toys in them), it’s just different places having different rules.
      - bertil 3y ago
        I can assure you that most Europeans think the reason US meat is not for sale here is because it is unfit for consumption: look at the debate in the UK around “chlorinated chicken” just after Brexit, or hormone beef. For most processed food, the (founded) assumption is that it’s full of HCFS.
- bioemerl 3y ago
  > Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement". A key difference here. Google is following the law. They are not implementing the standard that the EU requires because that standard requires overhead. Google has probably just done the math and realized the effort isn't worth the reward. They'll probably change that once things exit beta. And if they don't, that's likely the EUs fault more than it is Google. Google isn't just banning the EU for fun, they want that extra reach and money for sure.
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement" That's not for Google to decide. Google is a worldwide corporation, not some SV start-up dipping its toe in the water that is only expected to serve a tiny legislative region. The absurdity of the perspective that they can pick and choose laws to approve should become clear if you change EU-conformance with US. I'm guessing that this is a temporary situation and Google should clarify that as soon as possible to avoid looking arrogant or incompetent.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      So Google is so big that they have to offer all their services in the EU in a way that's compliant with EU laws? They can't simply choose not to offer services that may run afoul of regulations? If some large manufacturer has products not compliant with EU regulations, they're similarly also not allowed to restrict the markets where their products are sold?
    - bioemerl 3y ago
      > That's not for Google to decide. It is explicitly for Google to decide. Not releasing a product in the EU is well within their right to do, and if the EU begins to demand not only regulation but also that all products are released equally they'll be holding back the entire world and Google should have the EU entirely.
    - 3y ago
cccbbbaaa 3y ago
If they did follow EU laws, Bard would be available there…
- bioemerl 3y ago
  Why so?
  - bertil 3y ago
    Because it’s a large market and Google has a commercial incentive to make their offers available where they can legally do so.
    - bioemerl 3y ago
      Do you think they are doing this without commercial incentive in mind? I'm fairly confident they are, and they just decided the costs were not worth it in this case.
      - ranger_danger 3y ago
        Google would be profitable even without the entirety of the EU, and I think their decision to continue using practices (elsewhere) that the EU does not allow, probably means that the profit gained from such practices far outweighs the effort of complying with EU + any profit gained from EU users themselves.
  - cccbbbaaa 3y ago
    I worded my previous message poorly, but I would say that keeping a product out of a market, for what I assume are legal reasons, is the opposite of following the law. Anyway, sorry for this–I should stop arguing about semantics.
    - bioemerl 3y ago
      Not following the law would be releasing without privacy compliance and trying to make money off it. Blocking the EU is following the law.
ranger_danger 3y ago
I think the anger actually comes from users upset that Google did not design their product in such a way that it complies with EU laws so that it can be used there.

Are you being sarcastic or trolling? Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region, which is rather different to "following" it - and if indicating an intentional direction, pretty much a disgrace for a flagship tech company - so let's hope it's just temporary poor performance (or charitably, a staggered release) unrepresentative of their intentions going forward.

sclarisse 3y ago
They’re complying by not offering the product. Makes sense to me. It’s a free product. Any effort spent making it compliant is an expense not paid for. Any non compliance is a business risk, with a percent of global revenue at stake. Why take that risk for no benefit? Maybe once they have a revenue model for it and find it profitable things will change. Until then the GDPR is not the essence of all that is good in the world such that only the wicked heathens would dare not pay it homage. That’s imperialistic moralizing of the sort which at this point belongs in the dustbin of history along with Europe’s other collective efforts in the area.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  No, the imperialistic moralising is thinking a corporation gets to make the rules over democratic institutions.
  - _Wintermute 3y ago
    If you consistently fine a company for breaking your rules, you can't then demand access to their products that might break your rules.
    - mellosouls 3y ago
      Maybe they shouldn't break the rules instead?
      - zwily 3y ago
        There are a couple ways to do that. One is by not offering the product.
      - bioemerl 3y ago
        The EU is not within their right to regulate products made by Americans companies sold to Americans. If we want to talk imperialism, this is exactly that sort of overreach.
        mellosouls 3y ago
        That's a related but different point to here, it's not a counter argument.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    How do you reason? Google decided to follow the EU rules by not offering the service there.
- Xcelerate 3y ago
  This makes complete sense to me. Amazing that a company is getting criticism for not making a product available. One thing I’ve learned from HN over the years is that people are going to be mad and criticize you regardless of what you do, so just do what you want anyway and ignore the criticism. I really don’t like the way a lot of big corporations are handling things recently (especially with regard to layoffs and RTO), but I’m also not surprised that overly critical feedback by anonymous commenters on HN has little effect on changing people’s minds.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    There is this very strong thread here that a large US company has some moral imperative to offer a (free for now) product/service in the EU by people who presumably would not make the same case for China, much less Russia.
- bertil 3y ago
  The appropriate reaction is probably the same as if you hear that a brand of snacks is not legal to sell as food in the EU. You probably want to investigate. EU is many things and has some wacky laws (check Northern Ireland), but if a digital service is breaking EU law, they are likely doing something you do not want them to do.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    There are lots of agricultural goods not available in the states that are available in Europe, and vice versa. Few people take that as a signal that there is some danger in those products (well, except those chocolate eggs with toys in them), it’s just different places having different rules.
    - bertil 3y ago
      I can assure you that most Europeans think the reason US meat is not for sale here is because it is unfit for consumption: look at the debate in the UK around “chlorinated chicken” just after Brexit, or hormone beef. For most processed food, the (founded) assumption is that it’s full of HCFS.
bioemerl 3y ago
> Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement". A key difference here. Google is following the law. They are not implementing the standard that the EU requires because that standard requires overhead. Google has probably just done the math and realized the effort isn't worth the reward. They'll probably change that once things exit beta. And if they don't, that's likely the EUs fault more than it is Google. Google isn't just banning the EU for fun, they want that extra reach and money for sure.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement" That's not for Google to decide. Google is a worldwide corporation, not some SV start-up dipping its toe in the water that is only expected to serve a tiny legislative region. The absurdity of the perspective that they can pick and choose laws to approve should become clear if you change EU-conformance with US. I'm guessing that this is a temporary situation and Google should clarify that as soon as possible to avoid looking arrogant or incompetent.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    So Google is so big that they have to offer all their services in the EU in a way that's compliant with EU laws? They can't simply choose not to offer services that may run afoul of regulations? If some large manufacturer has products not compliant with EU regulations, they're similarly also not allowed to restrict the markets where their products are sold?
  - bioemerl 3y ago
    > That's not for Google to decide. It is explicitly for Google to decide. Not releasing a product in the EU is well within their right to do, and if the EU begins to demand not only regulation but also that all products are released equally they'll be holding back the entire world and Google should have the EU entirely.
  - 3y ago

cccbbbaaa 3y ago

If they did follow EU laws, Bard would be available there…

bioemerl 3y ago
Why so?
- bertil 3y ago
  Because it’s a large market and Google has a commercial incentive to make their offers available where they can legally do so.
  - bioemerl 3y ago
    Do you think they are doing this without commercial incentive in mind? I'm fairly confident they are, and they just decided the costs were not worth it in this case.
    - ranger_danger 3y ago
      Google would be profitable even without the entirety of the EU, and I think their decision to continue using practices (elsewhere) that the EU does not allow, probably means that the profit gained from such practices far outweighs the effort of complying with EU + any profit gained from EU users themselves.
- cccbbbaaa 3y ago
  I worded my previous message poorly, but I would say that keeping a product out of a market, for what I assume are legal reasons, is the opposite of following the law. Anyway, sorry for this–I should stop arguing about semantics.
  - bioemerl 3y ago
    Not following the law would be releasing without privacy compliance and trying to make money off it. Blocking the EU is following the law.

ranger_danger 3y ago

I think the anger actually comes from users upset that Google did not design their product in such a way that it complies with EU laws so that it can be used there.