5 ms·

The law here isn't some neutral concept of justice, but rather a regulation tailor-made by unelected officials to target large US companies.

Rinzler89 2y ago
Yeah, and anti drunk driving laws are discriminatorily tailor-made to target heavy alcohol enthusiasts.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  It's more like a law that targeted only sake drinkers, and punish them for a BAC of 0.01.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Can you provide any evidence or examples to support this point of view?
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    And Google is your sake drinker?
surgical_fire 2y ago
Not really, antitrust is far from being a new concept. It predates all the major tech companies. In fact, a cursory web search traces it back all the way to the Roman empire. and Google is definitely not the first to be hit by it. However, if Google (or any major US tech company) believe they are being wrongfully targeted, they can always stop operating in EU. Or you know, they can continue operating there, but follow the rules instead. Again, a very weird concept. Not sure you will understand it.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  What is it about this topic that makes you and others so hostile? It reads like heavy emotional reactions, but I am curious. There are 4 replies to my comment and 3 of them are uncharacteristically hostile.
  - persedes 2y ago
    Not justifying the tone of the responses, but you made a classical strawman argument and are now complaining about peoples responses.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      My argument is that the law in question is an EU economic policy targeting large US companies, not "justice" in the "law & order" sense of that word. This is a real position, not a straw man. In return I've gotten mostly insulting responses (though some thoughtful ones have now filtered in). I'm not even complaining about any of these, mostly just curious why this topic riles so many people up.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    In my reply I used some light sarcasm to convey my dismay at how wrong your original post was. If you read that as hostility or "heavy emotional reaction", well, that is a you problem. We can refer back to your original post: > The law here isn't some neutral concept of justice, but rather a regulation tailor-made by unelected officials to target large US companies. 1 - It ignores that antitrust law is a concept of justice, created to protect society against economic abuse that would otherwise harm it. 2 - It uses an old, boring, and plain wrong rhetoric about "unelected EU officials". Sorry, this is plain bullshit. 3 - It has a subtext of "poor US big tech company being unfairly targeted by mean EU government". Again, another boring and plain wrong rhetoric. Companies like Google are horribly abusive both to users and to the societies where they operate. I wouldn't be surprised if Google willingly ignored untitrust law in a cold calculation where they figured they make more in revenue then they lose in fines.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
karaterobot 2y ago
No, countries have the right to regulate businesses that operate in their jurisdiction. It's up to the companies to square that with their business model, or choose to do business elsewhere. I'm pretty free market, but this is common sense stuff: it has to work that way, or we've got the much bigger problem of either a techno dystopia with corporate nation-states, or else corporations becoming extensions of a government, waging war by other means on foreign shores. I don't like the "battle against big tech" framing, but I think that's just what the publisher went with to make it sound dramatic.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  I 100% agree that the EU has the right to do this. It may even be in their best interest to do so (idk, I'm not European). My point is more that it's not "justice" in the criminal-justice sense (eg: consequences for murder/robbery). It's economic policy, largely orthogonal to "justice".
  - bgirard 2y ago
    It might not be "justice" to you in the narrow definition you are creating, but fair economic and user privacy rules are justice to me and likely to most. I don't find it orthogonal to justice at all.
  - creesch 2y ago
    Yeah, no. If that was the case they would not fine companies based in the EU. Guess what? They are also going after companies based in the EU. Your argument holds very little water.
ADeerAppeared 2y ago
[flagged]
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Totally off topic in addition to being needlessly insulting. Why are you so emotional about this topic?
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    Would you mind telling us all why you arecall over the place defending Google unlawful behavior?
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Definitely. You start by showing me a comment defending google. All I could find is: >People don't like google (neither do I, actually) For the record, I am very confident that google is guilty with regard to these laws. I just also think that these laws are tailored by the EU to target large US companies like google as part of the EU's broader, anti-US tech economic policy.
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        What's the problem with regulations aimed at US big tech? If something it came too late. And for sure they don't need ahmeneeroe-v2 to defend them online for free.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        I've answered this elsewhere in the replies: the EU has the right to form an independent economic policy and to write regulations in support of that economic policy and to prosecute/punish companies in accordance with those regulations. I am just calling it by that: EU protectionism against big US tech cos. The EU doesn't need meiraleal patrolling the internet helping them masquerade as punishing the evildoers.
zaik 2y ago
The law making body of the EU is directly elected.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  The Council of the EU made these antitrust laws and they are not directly elected.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    The EU council is composed mainly of the heads of state or heads of government of each member state. All EU countries are democracies (at least supposedly, we have Hungary after all). The heads of state/government on democracies are not conjured up from thin air buddy, those are elected. You might be thinking of the European Commission, those are appointment by members of the council (that are elected) and confirmed by the European Parliament (also elected). The European Commissioners are more like ministers in a regular country. So saying they are unelected is as silly as saying that the minister of defense or minister of internal affairs in a country was unelected.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Elected officials appointed to a position, buddy. Not "directly" elected, like the GP claimed. You may be thinking of the EU Parliament, which is directly elected, but who did not pass these antitrust regulations.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        The EU Council is mainly composed by heads of state or government. In some countries that may be a president (which is directly elected), in others a prime minister (which you may argue is indirectly elected by a elected parliament). We may argue if presidentialism is somehow more democratic than parliamentarism, but prime ministers are undeniably elected (they are in the parliament after all). Also, whatever regulations proposed by the EU council or commission, they have to be approved by the parliament. That's their whole job. You are, honestly, just speaking bullshit about something you clearly don't understand, probably regurgitating bad takes you read online somewhere.
sweeter 2y ago
Yes, those pure, angelic and kind trillion dollar tech companies are being bullied by the big bad evil EU government because they are jealous of their success. They're just haters Its not like it has anything to do with them consistently violating people's rights and having the biggest monopoly in the history of the world. Get it twisted, you must defend them tooth and nail because one day, it could be you. /s
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Okay this is weirdly hostile/sarcastic reply thing is now officially a trend. What is it about this topic that you react so hard to?
ysofunny 2y ago
it's gonna get much harder to keep on pretending that unelected opereatives based out of the USA have attacked with violence, prejudice, and overall imperialistic intent all kinds of governments all over the world, including purported american "allies"

Rinzler89 2y ago

Yeah, and anti drunk driving laws are discriminatorily tailor-made to target heavy alcohol enthusiasts.

ivewonyoung 2y ago
It's more like a law that targeted only sake drinkers, and punish them for a BAC of 0.01.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Can you provide any evidence or examples to support this point of view?
- meiraleal 2y ago
  And Google is your sake drinker?

surgical_fire 2y ago

Not really, antitrust is far from being a new concept. It predates all the major tech companies. In fact, a cursory web search traces it back all the way to the Roman empire. and Google is definitely not the first to be hit by it. However, if Google (or any major US tech company) believe they are being wrongfully targeted, they can always stop operating in EU. Or you know, they can continue operating there, but follow the rules instead. Again, a very weird concept. Not sure you will understand it.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
What is it about this topic that makes you and others so hostile? It reads like heavy emotional reactions, but I am curious. There are 4 replies to my comment and 3 of them are uncharacteristically hostile.
- persedes 2y ago
  Not justifying the tone of the responses, but you made a classical strawman argument and are now complaining about peoples responses.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    My argument is that the law in question is an EU economic policy targeting large US companies, not "justice" in the "law & order" sense of that word. This is a real position, not a straw man. In return I've gotten mostly insulting responses (though some thoughtful ones have now filtered in). I'm not even complaining about any of these, mostly just curious why this topic riles so many people up.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  In my reply I used some light sarcasm to convey my dismay at how wrong your original post was. If you read that as hostility or "heavy emotional reaction", well, that is a you problem. We can refer back to your original post: > The law here isn't some neutral concept of justice, but rather a regulation tailor-made by unelected officials to target large US companies. 1 - It ignores that antitrust law is a concept of justice, created to protect society against economic abuse that would otherwise harm it. 2 - It uses an old, boring, and plain wrong rhetoric about "unelected EU officials". Sorry, this is plain bullshit. 3 - It has a subtext of "poor US big tech company being unfairly targeted by mean EU government". Again, another boring and plain wrong rhetoric. Companies like Google are horribly abusive both to users and to the societies where they operate. I wouldn't be surprised if Google willingly ignored untitrust law in a cold calculation where they figured they make more in revenue then they lose in fines.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

karaterobot 2y ago

No, countries have the right to regulate businesses that operate in their jurisdiction. It's up to the companies to square that with their business model, or choose to do business elsewhere. I'm pretty free market, but this is common sense stuff: it has to work that way, or we've got the much bigger problem of either a techno dystopia with corporate nation-states, or else corporations becoming extensions of a government, waging war by other means on foreign shores. I don't like the "battle against big tech" framing, but I think that's just what the publisher went with to make it sound dramatic.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
I 100% agree that the EU has the right to do this. It may even be in their best interest to do so (idk, I'm not European). My point is more that it's not "justice" in the criminal-justice sense (eg: consequences for murder/robbery). It's economic policy, largely orthogonal to "justice".
- bgirard 2y ago
  It might not be "justice" to you in the narrow definition you are creating, but fair economic and user privacy rules are justice to me and likely to most. I don't find it orthogonal to justice at all.
- creesch 2y ago
  Yeah, no. If that was the case they would not fine companies based in the EU. Guess what? They are also going after companies based in the EU. Your argument holds very little water.

ADeerAppeared 2y ago

[flagged]

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Totally off topic in addition to being needlessly insulting. Why are you so emotional about this topic?
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Would you mind telling us all why you arecall over the place defending Google unlawful behavior?
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Definitely. You start by showing me a comment defending google. All I could find is: >People don't like google (neither do I, actually) For the record, I am very confident that google is guilty with regard to these laws. I just also think that these laws are tailored by the EU to target large US companies like google as part of the EU's broader, anti-US tech economic policy.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      What's the problem with regulations aimed at US big tech? If something it came too late. And for sure they don't need ahmeneeroe-v2 to defend them online for free.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        I've answered this elsewhere in the replies: the EU has the right to form an independent economic policy and to write regulations in support of that economic policy and to prosecute/punish companies in accordance with those regulations. I am just calling it by that: EU protectionism against big US tech cos. The EU doesn't need meiraleal patrolling the internet helping them masquerade as punishing the evildoers.

zaik 2y ago

The law making body of the EU is directly elected.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
The Council of the EU made these antitrust laws and they are not directly elected.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  The EU council is composed mainly of the heads of state or heads of government of each member state. All EU countries are democracies (at least supposedly, we have Hungary after all). The heads of state/government on democracies are not conjured up from thin air buddy, those are elected. You might be thinking of the European Commission, those are appointment by members of the council (that are elected) and confirmed by the European Parliament (also elected). The European Commissioners are more like ministers in a regular country. So saying they are unelected is as silly as saying that the minister of defense or minister of internal affairs in a country was unelected.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Elected officials appointed to a position, buddy. Not "directly" elected, like the GP claimed. You may be thinking of the EU Parliament, which is directly elected, but who did not pass these antitrust regulations.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      The EU Council is mainly composed by heads of state or government. In some countries that may be a president (which is directly elected), in others a prime minister (which you may argue is indirectly elected by a elected parliament). We may argue if presidentialism is somehow more democratic than parliamentarism, but prime ministers are undeniably elected (they are in the parliament after all). Also, whatever regulations proposed by the EU council or commission, they have to be approved by the parliament. That's their whole job. You are, honestly, just speaking bullshit about something you clearly don't understand, probably regurgitating bad takes you read online somewhere.

sweeter 2y ago

Yes, those pure, angelic and kind trillion dollar tech companies are being bullied by the big bad evil EU government because they are jealous of their success. They're just haters Its not like it has anything to do with them consistently violating people's rights and having the biggest monopoly in the history of the world. Get it twisted, you must defend them tooth and nail because one day, it could be you. /s

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Okay this is weirdly hostile/sarcastic reply thing is now officially a trend. What is it about this topic that you react so hard to?

ysofunny 2y ago

it's gonna get much harder to keep on pretending that unelected opereatives based out of the USA have attacked with violence, prejudice, and overall imperialistic intent all kinds of governments all over the world, including purported american "allies"