2 ms·
> I don't think this is protectionism, but rather that EU companies fare better than US companies in environments with historically strong privacy laws, precise
by whimsicalism 3y ago
> I don't think this is protectionism, but rather that EU companies fare better than US companies in environments with historically strong privacy laws, precisely because they are subject to these regulations from day 1.
Here is a quote from an MEP who helped design the EU DMA on deciding who counts as a gatekeeper:
"Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line—one, two, three, four, five—and maybe six with Alibaba. But let’s not start with number seven to include a European gatekeeper just to please Biden.”
It is hard for me to read that as suggesting anything but strongly protectionist motivations.
> A ToS is a contract, and contracts can violate the law. Nothing surprising here.
I don't disagree, merely with the suggestion that the regulatory framework the EU has set up, which is still actively being worked out in a patchwork of procedural decisions up until literally today, is as clear-cut as the US prohibition on bribery in the FCPA.
- cccbbbaaa 3y agoThat's nice, but we're talking about the GDPR, a law with roots in the 70s. Not the DMA. And as I pointed out earlier, EU entities are getting fined and sued by regulators.
- whimsicalism 3y agoReally? I was the original commentator and afaik I was discussing “recent efforts” as protectionist including both new GDPR decisions and the DMA.
- cccbbbaaa 3y agoAbout GDPR and protectionism–I already answered. Sorry if I misunderstood you, I did not pay attention to the DMA and that was not the subject of the article.
- whimsicalism 3y agoFair enough, thank you for your informative comments here and with regards to cookie walls