10 ms·

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'

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
        > There's no EU-wide propaganda channel. Euronews ?
    - hulitu 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. Did you know that media companies are owned by foreign companies ? And when they are not, some people from those media companies are members/close to dubious ONGs ?
  - rdm_blackhole 3y ago
    Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. They are close to 30K lobbyists in Brussels as of this moment. So much for stopping bribery and misinformation. See the current Chat Control law which is sponsored by foreign corporations. In a world without the EU, those companies would have had to lobby their way into 27 different parliaments and the countries most eager to proceed with a dangerous piece of legislation could have been the canary in the coal mine for the other countries about what not to do. Instead corporations can now buy their way into the inner circle of a single European commissioner (who is not elected mind you). The EU basically streamlined corruption and lacks the complete oversight to do anything about it. Finally, the EU as it exists in its current form has only been around for the last 30 years, which is a mere blip in the history of nations like France, Germany and others. To claim that only an Institution like the EU can bring an end to corruption and bribery seems a complete stretch if not an outright lie. There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea.
    - skummetmaelk 3y ago
      > There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. When is this argument going to die? Should all provinces in every country declare independence and take back control from the supra-provincial government? Should all cities in all provinces declare independence from the provincial governments too? Should every neighbourhood....? You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case. Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it.
- 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.

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
      > There's no EU-wide propaganda channel. Euronews ?
  - hulitu 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. Did you know that media companies are owned by foreign companies ? And when they are not, some people from those media companies are members/close to dubious ONGs ?
- rdm_blackhole 3y ago
  Unless you can provide any evidence that the EU has been able to stamp out corruption, then you point is mute. They are close to 30K lobbyists in Brussels as of this moment. So much for stopping bribery and misinformation. See the current Chat Control law which is sponsored by foreign corporations. In a world without the EU, those companies would have had to lobby their way into 27 different parliaments and the countries most eager to proceed with a dangerous piece of legislation could have been the canary in the coal mine for the other countries about what not to do. Instead corporations can now buy their way into the inner circle of a single European commissioner (who is not elected mind you). The EU basically streamlined corruption and lacks the complete oversight to do anything about it. Finally, the EU as it exists in its current form has only been around for the last 30 years, which is a mere blip in the history of nations like France, Germany and others. To claim that only an Institution like the EU can bring an end to corruption and bribery seems a complete stretch if not an outright lie. There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea.
  - skummetmaelk 3y ago
    > There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. When is this argument going to die? Should all provinces in every country declare independence and take back control from the supra-provincial government? Should all cities in all provinces declare independence from the provincial governments too? Should every neighbourhood....? You can keep going on about the "supra-national agencies" for as long as you want. At the end of the day your argument rests on the assumption that the nation state is the final form of sovereignty, and there's just no God-given reason for that to be the case. Entities form political and economic alliances when it is beneficial to do so. There are costs associated with the benefits of course, and those must be evaluated. Your argument that it's inherently bad because "It's not a sovereign nation state any more", is just a rather weak, but infectious, talking point. I don't understand why people keep regurgitating it.
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.