4 ms·

The way these laws and regs don't even consider the provider size is aggravating. Doubly so because they always use "big bad provider" and think of the kids as

The way these laws and regs don't even consider the provider size is aggravating. Doubly so because they always use "big bad provider" and think of the kids as populist support gaining strategies, but in the end the same big providers benefit. They have the billions to spend on everything from lawyers to fiscal optimisation, and they rake in the entire market since they're the only ones left to serve that market. That's happening with the AI act here as well. Almost no-one wants to even touch the EU shitshow and they're still going forward with it. Even Mistral was trying to petition them, but the latest news seem like it had no effect. Fuck us I guess, right? Both consumers and SMBs will lose if this passes as is.

skippyboxedhero 1y ago
They did consider the provider size, it is probably the main element of this law: the problem is that the consideration was to assume that you are always dealing with mega-large companies with teams of lawyers...because these companies have been lobbying regulators and civil servants (not Parliament so much, they don't matter anymore) for years. This is extremely common in the UK (very low corruption by historical methods but when decisions are actually made, there is corruption almost everywhere). The provider size was an active choice. It isn't populist either, no-one supports this. The UK has media campaigns run by newspapers, no-one reads the papers but politicians so these campaigns start to influence politicians. Always the same: spontaneous media campaign across multiple newspapers (low impact on other kinds of media), child as a figurehead, and the law always has significant implications that are nothing to do with the publicly stated aim. Democracy has very little to do with it. Elections happen in the UK but policies don't change, it is obvious why.
- pjc50 1y ago
  I wouldn't underestimate how weirdly authoritarian British populism can get. Always aimed against "other people", of course.
edelsohn 1y ago
Regulatory capture. The impact on small providers was intended.
- librasteve 1y ago
  lobby fodder

skippyboxedhero 1y ago

They did consider the provider size, it is probably the main element of this law: the problem is that the consideration was to assume that you are always dealing with mega-large companies with teams of lawyers...because these companies have been lobbying regulators and civil servants (not Parliament so much, they don't matter anymore) for years. This is extremely common in the UK (very low corruption by historical methods but when decisions are actually made, there is corruption almost everywhere). The provider size was an active choice. It isn't populist either, no-one supports this. The UK has media campaigns run by newspapers, no-one reads the papers but politicians so these campaigns start to influence politicians. Always the same: spontaneous media campaign across multiple newspapers (low impact on other kinds of media), child as a figurehead, and the law always has significant implications that are nothing to do with the publicly stated aim. Democracy has very little to do with it. Elections happen in the UK but policies don't change, it is obvious why.

pjc50 1y ago
I wouldn't underestimate how weirdly authoritarian British populism can get. Always aimed against "other people", of course.

edelsohn 1y ago

Regulatory capture. The impact on small providers was intended.

librasteve 1y ago
lobby fodder