6 ms·

These revelations make me continuously lose trust in the integrity of Brussels. I my eyes, they are too far away, too diverse, and too big to be trusted. Electi

These revelations make me continuously lose trust in the integrity of Brussels. I my eyes, they are too far away, too diverse, and too big to be trusted. Elections are nearing, however, and perhaps we might effect a change. Keep in mind, people voting for your chains have names and parties promoting those very names...

skummetmaelk 3y ago
It would indeed be much better if the EU didn't exist. It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block. That's your point, right?
- zosima 3y ago
  EU has started a general fight with all tech. US and European alike. Most countries would generally avoid that, in order to not kill its own tech sector. EU on the other hand seems to have no such qualms. But sure, the EU commission has gotten quite a lot of money out of fighting privacy intrusion by big US tech, but as is apparent from the suggested proposal, clearly not for the benefit of the EU citizens. On the other hand it's clear that many large US and European corporations has a huge amount of influence in specific legislation being passed. Forbidding certain types of goods (like e.g. incandescent light bulbs and plastic straws and much, much more) and forcing the use of certain alternatives. This type of random acts of lobby legislation is seen a lot less often in national legislation around the world.
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block intuitively it seems true, but is there any evidence for that?
  - justinclift 3y ago
    To me, that intuitively seems very untrue rather than true. Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms.
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      Something to consider about these smaller countries is that they're a different culture with a different language. Non-native people stand out. It's a lot harder for people to spread misinformation online in a country like Estonia without speaking Estonian and keeping up with Estonian affairs. I think even corruption would be harder to swing against officials in a small European state compared to the EU, because things are less likely to be lost in endless European bureaucracy. However, I think the nation itself could be "bribed" in a legal fashion. A large company has the resources to make a good enough offer that the country would make concessions on something important. Eg opening a large data center in exchange for more lenient treatment via regulations.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        > Non-native people stand out. ??? Non-native people hire locals for exactly that reason. Also, there is an abundance of cases of smaller countries being corrupted by foreign influence. It's not just theoretical, it happens widely, and it commonly involves the top ranks (political, military) of those smaller countries.
      - throwaway14356 3y ago
        Some proclaimed cai agent said that before the EU only France didn't do exactly as told by the US.
      - skummetmaelk 3y ago
        > It's a lot harder for people to spread misinformation online in a country like Estonia without speaking Estonian and keeping up with Estonian affairs. I think even corruption would be harder to swing against officials in a small European state compared to the EU, because things are less likely to be lost in endless European bureaucracy. What does spreading misinformation have to do with corrupting the government? If you want to spread misinformation in the EU, you also must target every individual country. There's no EU-wide propaganda channel.
        hulitu 3y ago
  - skummetmaelk 3y ago
    It's not true, and the post is missing a /s.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block Seriously? Have you bothered to loom around the world, in which countries are large multinationals seeing pushbacks and competition? Where does google have less than 50% market share? China, Russia. And In russia they had stiff competition from way back, like 2005 days, with Yandex and others. Where does pharma industry get held to account? India. Where does big tech get fined for privacy violations? EU. Boeing has crushed all competitors, in large part through law suits and shady dealing, except Airbus which is unconditionally backed by EU. Small nations can't seem to hold corporations to account even for blatant crimes. When UK parliament required Zukerberg to testify, he didnt even bother showing up. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-declines-to-appear-before-uk-fake-news-inquiry-mps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-...
  - eastbound 3y ago
    > Where does big tech get fined for privacy violations? EU. Every revolution yields extremely positive results at the beginning, during the phase where they seize a lot of private property and redistribute it. Then when it comes to actually producing goods, it may take 80 years for a tyrannical regime to fall down. The EU, of course, has a few positive trophies. Otherwise, people would notice. Likewise, when it tries to seduce a new country, it pours money into it. Look at Scotland! Every road and building and school seems to be a gift of the EU! Cue the “I like the EU because EU gave us everything!” Someone else is paying. It’s just a loan - The EU doesn’t “work” for you, doesn’t “pay” for you, it just gives you things it took elsewhere. And while those fines to M$ make me happy, well, I’ve paid a few billions every year to set up the EU, and those fines barely cover the working expenses of MPs, I’m paying for those MPs to work for me. And all they give us is a requirement to open our borders. The cycle is complete when the “new voters” vote for the EU because it gave them everything.
    - skummetmaelk 3y ago
      The EU "may" become tyrannical in 80 years and therefore it's definitely, objectively, better for it not to exist. What kind of logic is that argument based on? BTW Spain and Portugal joined the EU in 1986 and are net monetary aid beneficiaries. So your argument about only receiving things initially is hilariously wrong.
- eastbound 3y ago
  > It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than But much more valuable. Probably easier as well. I can write to my national member of parliament, but not to the EU MP, since they’re too far from citizen to care, and too close to corporations to reject a lobby’s proposal. We’ve cornered Europe into a honey trap that will make us as badly governed as the US in a very short time. I’m constantly wondering where I should flee to.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  I disagree profoundly and believe it to be the opposite. The EU is central, so companies have an easier target. Such surveillance systems need a critical mass of adoption, that is far easier for the whole of the EU to reach than for single countries where some reject it. Also officials are more detached from the voters and his fairly small veto. So direct business relations are more prominent than any voter campaign. Overall it leaves a much larger attack surface to lobbying of this kind.
rdm_blackhole 3y ago
The EU was a good idea at the start but it has been perverted and is becoming worse by the year. People looked at the USSR and knew this was bad idea and then they went on to do it again. It was supposed to be a community to facilitate trade between countries. Instead they want to make it a new country with its own flag, its own parliament, it's own army, it's own laws that supersede the laws of the member states. The British knew it and that is why they left. This was not supposed to be the plan. However nowadays criticizing the EU is like asking 2020 where COVID came from, you shouldn't talk about it because otherwise you may be labelled as a conspiracy theorist or even worse a populist.
- kergonath 3y ago
  > People looked at the USSR and knew this was bad idea and then they went on to do it again. I assume the next step is you explaining how and in what respects the EU is like the USSR. Because for now it’s not really convincing. For example, how the current decision process could lead to something like the Holodomor. In which way is the European Parliament like the supreme Soviet. How the political systems works to reinforce the power of the biggest member over its satellites. How the EU could do something like the invasion of Afghanistan. How it could bleed itself dry with a pointless arms race. You know, the sort of reasons why the USSR actually collapsed. > It was supposed to be a community to facilitate trade between countries. Sigh. It never was. From the beginning it was a union to prevent war between members. You can read on the Schuman declaration (1950) or the treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957), for a start. > Instead they want to make it a new country with its own flag It’s not a new country, and it’s not a country at all. > its own parliament The common assembly, which became the European Parliament was created with the treaty of Paris in 1951, it cannot have come as a surprise to any member who joined afterwards. > it's own army It does not have an army. > it's own laws that supersede the laws of the member states. Again, this has been the case since the very beginning, when it was an alliance of 6 countries. How is this any new? Where is the deception? > The British knew it and that is why they left. This was not supposed to be the plan. The British left over internal politics and the dysfunction of their main political parties. One side did use the arguments you mentioned. It was bullshit then, and it is stil bullshit now. > However nowadays criticizing the EU is like asking 2020 where COVID came from, you shouldn't talk about it because otherwise you may be labelled as a conspiracy theorist or even worse a populist. You can. We’re living in democracies and we can criticise anything we want. The kind of blatant dishonesty and bad faith in your arguments is why you get those labels. Mainstream political parties criticise the EU all the time, both from left- and right-wing perspectives. If you’re from the UK, I am sorry but your problems come from your own government.
telmo 3y ago
> they are too far away The USA and the EU have comparable size. Is Washington DC too far away for the USA to work? > too diverse The USA is widely regarded as a cultural melting point, and it's ability to attract immigrants from all corners of the world part of the reason for its economic success. I would argue that the EU is less diverse than the USA. > too big to be trusted Brussels bureaucracy is in fact relatively small when compared to the national bureaucracies of western countries. This claim was repeatedly made during the Brexit referendum campaign. Interestingly enough, the UK's civil service is aprox 10x the size of Brussels (350k vs. 40k, resp.) These are claims that are repeated ad nauseam by people who have antipathy towards the EU, but they have very little substance indeed.
woodpanel 3y ago
Watering your vote down (Germans by a factor of five, Danes by a factor of 90) is always a bad idea, representation-wise. That this would result in Brussles being “too far away” should surprise no one. I mean the infamous quote by Jean Claude Juncker says it all: “We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” The EU very well knows that if most of their policies were up for vote, including each and every job of theirs, they would be out of office within a year.
lost_tourist 3y ago
EU should be nothing more than a basic trade entity and leave governing to the people of the countries of Europe. I'm surprised they ever agreed to be controlled by some supposed meritocracy hundreds to 1000+ miles away from their border. Y'all should definitely be suspicious of any NGOs from the US trying to take away your freedom, we know from personal experience here in the States that they are toxic in the extreme and constantly fighting them via ACLU, EFF and others.

skummetmaelk 3y ago

It would indeed be much better if the EU didn't exist. It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block. That's your point, right?

zosima 3y ago
EU has started a general fight with all tech. US and European alike. Most countries would generally avoid that, in order to not kill its own tech sector. EU on the other hand seems to have no such qualms. But sure, the EU commission has gotten quite a lot of money out of fighting privacy intrusion by big US tech, but as is apparent from the suggested proposal, clearly not for the benefit of the EU citizens. On the other hand it's clear that many large US and European corporations has a huge amount of influence in specific legislation being passed. Forbidding certain types of goods (like e.g. incandescent light bulbs and plastic straws and much, much more) and forcing the use of certain alternatives. This type of random acts of lobby legislation is seen a lot less often in national legislation around the world.
andrekandre 3y ago
> It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block intuitively it seems true, but is there any evidence for that?
- justinclift 3y ago
  To me, that intuitively seems very untrue rather than true. Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    Something to consider about these smaller countries is that they're a different culture with a different language. Non-native people stand out. It's a lot harder for people to spread misinformation online in a country like Estonia without speaking Estonian and keeping up with Estonian affairs. I think even corruption would be harder to swing against officials in a small European state compared to the EU, because things are less likely to be lost in endless European bureaucracy. However, I think the nation itself could be "bribed" in a legal fashion. A large company has the resources to make a good enough offer that the country would make concessions on something important. Eg opening a large data center in exchange for more lenient treatment via regulations.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      > Non-native people stand out. ??? Non-native people hire locals for exactly that reason. Also, there is an abundance of cases of smaller countries being corrupted by foreign influence. It's not just theoretical, it happens widely, and it commonly involves the top ranks (political, military) of those smaller countries.
    - throwaway14356 3y ago
      Some proclaimed cai agent said that before the EU only France didn't do exactly as told by the US.
    - skummetmaelk 3y ago
      > It's a lot harder for people to spread misinformation online in a country like Estonia without speaking Estonian and keeping up with Estonian affairs. I think even corruption would be harder to swing against officials in a small European state compared to the EU, because things are less likely to be lost in endless European bureaucracy. What does spreading misinformation have to do with corrupting the government? If you want to spread misinformation in the EU, you also must target every individual country. There's no EU-wide propaganda channel.
      - hulitu 3y ago
- skummetmaelk 3y ago
  It's not true, and the post is missing a /s.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block Seriously? Have you bothered to loom around the world, in which countries are large multinationals seeing pushbacks and competition? Where does google have less than 50% market share? China, Russia. And In russia they had stiff competition from way back, like 2005 days, with Yandex and others. Where does pharma industry get held to account? India. Where does big tech get fined for privacy violations? EU. Boeing has crushed all competitors, in large part through law suits and shady dealing, except Airbus which is unconditionally backed by EU. Small nations can't seem to hold corporations to account even for blatant crimes. When UK parliament required Zukerberg to testify, he didnt even bother showing up. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-declines-to-appear-before-uk-fake-news-inquiry-mps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-...
- eastbound 3y ago
  > Where does big tech get fined for privacy violations? EU. Every revolution yields extremely positive results at the beginning, during the phase where they seize a lot of private property and redistribute it. Then when it comes to actually producing goods, it may take 80 years for a tyrannical regime to fall down. The EU, of course, has a few positive trophies. Otherwise, people would notice. Likewise, when it tries to seduce a new country, it pours money into it. Look at Scotland! Every road and building and school seems to be a gift of the EU! Cue the “I like the EU because EU gave us everything!” Someone else is paying. It’s just a loan - The EU doesn’t “work” for you, doesn’t “pay” for you, it just gives you things it took elsewhere. And while those fines to M$ make me happy, well, I’ve paid a few billions every year to set up the EU, and those fines barely cover the working expenses of MPs, I’m paying for those MPs to work for me. And all they give us is a requirement to open our borders. The cycle is complete when the “new voters” vote for the EU because it gave them everything.
  - skummetmaelk 3y ago
    The EU "may" become tyrannical in 80 years and therefore it's definitely, objectively, better for it not to exist. What kind of logic is that argument based on? BTW Spain and Portugal joined the EU in 1986 and are net monetary aid beneficiaries. So your argument about only receiving things initially is hilariously wrong.
eastbound 3y ago
> It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than But much more valuable. Probably easier as well. I can write to my national member of parliament, but not to the EU MP, since they’re too far from citizen to care, and too close to corporations to reject a lobby’s proposal. We’ve cornered Europe into a honey trap that will make us as badly governed as the US in a very short time. I’m constantly wondering where I should flee to.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
I disagree profoundly and believe it to be the opposite. The EU is central, so companies have an easier target. Such surveillance systems need a critical mass of adoption, that is far easier for the whole of the EU to reach than for single countries where some reject it. Also officials are more detached from the voters and his fairly small veto. So direct business relations are more prominent than any voter campaign. Overall it leaves a much larger attack surface to lobbying of this kind.

rdm_blackhole 3y ago

The EU was a good idea at the start but it has been perverted and is becoming worse by the year. People looked at the USSR and knew this was bad idea and then they went on to do it again. It was supposed to be a community to facilitate trade between countries. Instead they want to make it a new country with its own flag, its own parliament, it's own army, it's own laws that supersede the laws of the member states. The British knew it and that is why they left. This was not supposed to be the plan. However nowadays criticizing the EU is like asking 2020 where COVID came from, you shouldn't talk about it because otherwise you may be labelled as a conspiracy theorist or even worse a populist.

kergonath 3y ago
> People looked at the USSR and knew this was bad idea and then they went on to do it again. I assume the next step is you explaining how and in what respects the EU is like the USSR. Because for now it’s not really convincing. For example, how the current decision process could lead to something like the Holodomor. In which way is the European Parliament like the supreme Soviet. How the political systems works to reinforce the power of the biggest member over its satellites. How the EU could do something like the invasion of Afghanistan. How it could bleed itself dry with a pointless arms race. You know, the sort of reasons why the USSR actually collapsed. > It was supposed to be a community to facilitate trade between countries. Sigh. It never was. From the beginning it was a union to prevent war between members. You can read on the Schuman declaration (1950) or the treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957), for a start. > Instead they want to make it a new country with its own flag It’s not a new country, and it’s not a country at all. > its own parliament The common assembly, which became the European Parliament was created with the treaty of Paris in 1951, it cannot have come as a surprise to any member who joined afterwards. > it's own army It does not have an army. > it's own laws that supersede the laws of the member states. Again, this has been the case since the very beginning, when it was an alliance of 6 countries. How is this any new? Where is the deception? > The British knew it and that is why they left. This was not supposed to be the plan. The British left over internal politics and the dysfunction of their main political parties. One side did use the arguments you mentioned. It was bullshit then, and it is stil bullshit now. > However nowadays criticizing the EU is like asking 2020 where COVID came from, you shouldn't talk about it because otherwise you may be labelled as a conspiracy theorist or even worse a populist. You can. We’re living in democracies and we can criticise anything we want. The kind of blatant dishonesty and bad faith in your arguments is why you get those labels. Mainstream political parties criticise the EU all the time, both from left- and right-wing perspectives. If you’re from the UK, I am sorry but your problems come from your own government.

telmo 3y ago

> they are too far away The USA and the EU have comparable size. Is Washington DC too far away for the USA to work? > too diverse The USA is widely regarded as a cultural melting point, and it's ability to attract immigrants from all corners of the world part of the reason for its economic success. I would argue that the EU is less diverse than the USA. > too big to be trusted Brussels bureaucracy is in fact relatively small when compared to the national bureaucracies of western countries. This claim was repeatedly made during the Brexit referendum campaign. Interestingly enough, the UK's civil service is aprox 10x the size of Brussels (350k vs. 40k, resp.) These are claims that are repeated ad nauseam by people who have antipathy towards the EU, but they have very little substance indeed.

woodpanel 3y ago

Watering your vote down (Germans by a factor of five, Danes by a factor of 90) is always a bad idea, representation-wise. That this would result in Brussles being “too far away” should surprise no one. I mean the infamous quote by Jean Claude Juncker says it all: “We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” The EU very well knows that if most of their policies were up for vote, including each and every job of theirs, they would be out of office within a year.

lost_tourist 3y ago

EU should be nothing more than a basic trade entity and leave governing to the people of the countries of Europe. I'm surprised they ever agreed to be controlled by some supposed meritocracy hundreds to 1000+ miles away from their border. Y'all should definitely be suspicious of any NGOs from the US trying to take away your freedom, we know from personal experience here in the States that they are toxic in the extreme and constantly fighting them via ACLU, EFF and others.