5 ms·
Or worse, to target specific companies that the government doesn't like for whatever reason (arguably, this is already happening in the EU).
by jonas21 2y ago
Or worse, to target specific companies that the government doesn't like for whatever reason (arguably, this is already happening in the EU).
- tossandthrow 2y agoHow is this happening in the EU?
- can16358p 2y agoThat's EU's whole weaponized business model for lacking in technological development (I mean the "big tech" not tech in general though).
- immibis 2y agoHave you considered the Occam's razor possibility that Europe genuinely doesn't want these companies doing business the way they do, rather than it being a conspiracy to increase government revenue? Remember, it's often illegal to take a photograph in public in Germany, and for this reason Google Street View is decades old.
- can16358p 2y agoI of course considered it. If they genuinely think that way, it's even worse IMHO. If it was just a tactic it could at least have a sensible (though evil) explanation.
- immibis 2y agoIf I understood correctly, you think people genuinely wanting privacy, and preferring to have more privacy and no Facebook rather than less privacy and more Facebook, is inherently worse than actual corruption. This says more about you than about the EU.
- can16358p 2y agoThis has nothing to do with Facebook or a specific entity. This is about accessing and capturing already available public data (e.g. someone's appearance in public). Just like ad hominem framing tells more about you than me.
- consteval 2y agoI think if people of a country have a standard for how companies should act that's fair game. If they don't want companies to do that stuff than the companies leaving or crying isn't a bad thing, it's accomplishing the goal.
- tomComb 2y agoNow we're getting to the real point of this. It is usually whatever company isn't friendly enough to the current government. In Canada, it is any company that dares to compete with the telecom companies.