3 ms·

> The EU have regulated themselves into a corner where all they can do is shout at American and Asian tech companies I think you may have this backwards. Consi

by hliyan 3y ago

> The EU have regulated themselves into a corner where all they can do is shout at American and Asian tech companies I think you may have this backwards. Consider the Brussels Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect I used to think of the EU as stagnant compared to the US. But now I realise (especially in light of COVID) that some things we consider inefficiencies are actually safety margins. The EU may not move fast and break things, but I'm starting to view them as slow, steady and generally robust over the long term (think multi-generational).

thrown1212 3y ago
And more precisely: “Safety margins are inefficiencies” This short statement is profound and bears repeating slowly and often to people in any kind of power.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >bears repeating slowly and often to people in any kind of power. They don't care. And they aren't paid to care. That's the issue. If they can make $100m profit at the cost of being fined $10m and some financially useless metric like environmental impact, that's still $90m profit and makes the shareholders happy. It's not incompetence, it's a calculated risk. At this point the question should shift more to making those sharehoolders care about this stuff so they can tank companies for being incompetent. But they also have short sighted trigger hairs, and it's easy for them to pull out either way.
  - beebeepka 3y ago
    The game they play is all about money, so the only way to make them care is threaten the money.
  - hliyan 3y ago
    This has got me wondering: what if all publicly listed companies are required to have an ethics officer whose job is to point out ethical concerns regarding management decisions (whereas management is usually only concerned about legal compliance, no more, no less)? The recommendations of the ethics officer are non-binding -- i.e. management is free to ignore them, but they do so at their peril: if an issue arises and management is found to have ignored the recommendations, then they are accountable. If the ethics officer fails to raise the concern, then they are accountable. What form that accountability takes, is something I haven't thought about.

by hliyan 3y ago

thrown1212 3y ago

And more precisely: “Safety margins are inefficiencies” This short statement is profound and bears repeating slowly and often to people in any kind of power.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>bears repeating slowly and often to people in any kind of power. They don't care. And they aren't paid to care. That's the issue. If they can make $100m profit at the cost of being fined $10m and some financially useless metric like environmental impact, that's still $90m profit and makes the shareholders happy. It's not incompetence, it's a calculated risk. At this point the question should shift more to making those sharehoolders care about this stuff so they can tank companies for being incompetent. But they also have short sighted trigger hairs, and it's easy for them to pull out either way.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  The game they play is all about money, so the only way to make them care is threaten the money.
- hliyan 3y ago
  This has got me wondering: what if all publicly listed companies are required to have an ethics officer whose job is to point out ethical concerns regarding management decisions (whereas management is usually only concerned about legal compliance, no more, no less)? The recommendations of the ethics officer are non-binding -- i.e. management is free to ignore them, but they do so at their peril: if an issue arises and management is found to have ignored the recommendations, then they are accountable. If the ethics officer fails to raise the concern, then they are accountable. What form that accountability takes, is something I haven't thought about.