3 ms·

I think the stance is that while what the EU does is good for the consumer it's annoying as hell for American tech companies to be assessed billion dollar fines

by Spivak 3y ago

I think the stance is that while what the EU does is good for the consumer it's annoying as hell for American tech companies to be assessed billion dollar fines all the time. If the punishment was "comply in 180 days or we'll suspend your business charter" I think you'd see a lot more support.

NeoTar 3y ago
If they obeyed the rules to begin with they wouldn't be fined. It's literally a calculated risk by the big tech companies that the cost of compliance will be less than the profits during the time of non-compliance.
- danuker 3y ago
  Sadly it pays off. The biggest ones are the worst. Windows has been rewriting boot loaders and bullying smaller companies with SmartScreen Application Reputation. Android has forced everyone through FCM (or suffer degraded experience). Apple adds software glitches if you replace iPhone parts. Where are the regulators? Asleep, underfunded, or being paid off to close their eyes. And then, these companies get to write the laws through lobbying because of their scale.
matkoniecz 3y ago
Not sure why the proposed alternative is better to anyone at all.
seszett 3y ago
> If the punishment was "comply in 180 days or we'll suspend your business charter" The punishment is generally "comply in 180 days [actually it's usually measured in years] or we'll fine you". And they often don't comply, and then get fined and sometimes end up complying. Why would your proposal be better?
- tempodox 3y ago
  Because the fines are just priced in as cost of doing business. They don't actually change anything.
  - seszett 3y ago
    But the very article we are discussing shows that it does change things, though?
    - tempodox 3y ago
      It’s the exception that confirms the rule.
sebazzz 3y ago
It is just a culture difference basically.