3 ms·

> It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever

by dartos 2y ago

> It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide revenue to get 1% more market share. Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. How would selling products to smaller countries automatically incur fines for illegal activity?

StackRanker3000 2y ago
I don’t think anyone’s saying it would be automatic. But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, and if the penalties are too steep, then it may be a wiser choice to stay out of small markets entirely.
- dartos 2y ago
  > But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, So the solution is to make breaking laws not truly punished? Seems like companies should be damn sure they’re not breaking laws… Of course not every fine needs to put the company in danger of bankruptcy. Fines could start relatively small and grow quickly and exponentially with repeated offenses. But they should act as a real deterrent.
gruez 2y ago
Apple wants to operate in Liechtenstein. Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue. Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws, but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined. Faced with that prospect, they go "nah" and stay out of the market entirely, because the extra 0.1% profit is massively outweighed by the potential 5% revenue in fines. All 40k Liechtensteiners are worse off as a result. This isn't a hypothetical. It's happening in EU right now, as Apple doesn't want to deal with the legal headaches associated with Apple Intelligence and therefore opts out of the EU market entirely.
- dartos 2y ago
  > Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws I wish I lived in your world. > but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined. You’re telling me that it’s okay that laws are sometimes broken with no real consequence because the company in question may mistakenly break laws? Yikes… > Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue I don’t know if revenue is the exact metric to use to making a deterring fine. It very well may not be. But the fine should act as some real deterrent > All 40k Liechtensteiners are worse off as a result. This isn't a hypothetical. It's happening in EU right now, as Apple doesn't want to deal with the legal headaches associated with Apple Intelligence and therefore opts out of the EU market entirely. This is a very complex topic and I don’t feel well equipped to discuss it with any real nuance. But here I go anyway… I’m not convinced that not having access to Apple intelligence makes a country worse off. Not all countries need to be supported by a large corporation. That’s not strictly a good thing. If they (the EU) wanted that, they’d lax their regulations…

by dartos 2y ago

StackRanker3000 2y ago

I don’t think anyone’s saying it would be automatic. But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, and if the penalties are too steep, then it may be a wiser choice to stay out of small markets entirely.

dartos 2y ago
> But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, So the solution is to make breaking laws not truly punished? Seems like companies should be damn sure they’re not breaking laws… Of course not every fine needs to put the company in danger of bankruptcy. Fines could start relatively small and grow quickly and exponentially with repeated offenses. But they should act as a real deterrent.

gruez 2y ago

Apple wants to operate in Liechtenstein. Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue. Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws, but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined. Faced with that prospect, they go "nah" and stay out of the market entirely, because the extra 0.1% profit is massively outweighed by the potential 5% revenue in fines. All 40k Liechtensteiners are worse off as a result. This isn't a hypothetical. It's happening in EU right now, as Apple doesn't want to deal with the legal headaches associated with Apple Intelligence and therefore opts out of the EU market entirely.

dartos 2y ago
> Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws I wish I lived in your world. > but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined. You’re telling me that it’s okay that laws are sometimes broken with no real consequence because the company in question may mistakenly break laws? Yikes… > Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue I don’t know if revenue is the exact metric to use to making a deterring fine. It very well may not be. But the fine should act as some real deterrent > All 40k Liechtensteiners are worse off as a result. This isn't a hypothetical. It's happening in EU right now, as Apple doesn't want to deal with the legal headaches associated with Apple Intelligence and therefore opts out of the EU market entirely. This is a very complex topic and I don’t feel well equipped to discuss it with any real nuance. But here I go anyway… I’m not convinced that not having access to Apple intelligence makes a country worse off. Not all countries need to be supported by a large corporation. That’s not strictly a good thing. If they (the EU) wanted that, they’d lax their regulations…