8 ms·

EU Commission finds Temu in breach of online platform rules

68 points by saubeidl 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago
One to bear in mind when people say that the online platform rules are anti-American.
- oblio 1y ago
  Oh, don't worry, this will be rephrased as "it impedes Americans, too, so it's anti American". Despite the fact that the US is doing the exact same thing to other economies, especially China. China has great networking equipment, but it can't be sold in the US. China has great smartphone brands, those can't be sold, either. Chinese electric cars, same. China obviously is the OG regarding impeding or outright blocking competition with the 51% joint ventures. Of course it's also protectionism, everyone is doing it. However where I hear crickets is the actual public benefit/moral angle: Just because foreign companies that absolutely dominate these markets are the ones being fined the most, does that mean that the ideas behind the fines are wrong? Working for US companies operating in Europe, I would say that they (and probably Chinese companies - from what I hear) are natural targets: "move fast and break things", everything is US derived in spirit and in action and Europe doesn't work like that (the US is basically: you're smart and/or privileged and you get a decent or great life, if you're neither of those things, go live under a bridge). Can't both do a lot of gray area stuff to grow unicorns and also not expect to be punished for breaking lots of social eggs.
- 0xy 1y ago
  Notably does not include application of the DMA, which applies exclusively to US tech and Euro tech is excluded by wordsmithed carve-outs.
  - jeppester 1y ago
    > Euro tech is excluded by wordsmithed carve-outs. How so?
    - 0xy 1y ago
      Booking.com is excluded despite being Euro mega tech and being a blatant monopoly.
dotandgtfo 1y ago
Thanks to some frankly amazing American propaganda there's a surge of interest in free speech in Europe. Funnily the same regulations that aim to remove toxic products, make platforms more transparent, and hold platforms more accountable for breaking the law all are being attacked for encroaching on free speech. I don't see it succeeding. It's hard to explain just how much shit these digital platforms pull when serving a small market they don't care much about. People are rightfully pissed. It's seeped deeply into the public sphere the last ~8 years. Much more than I imagined possible even 2-3 years ago. Doubly so with the recent merging of the Republican party and technology leaders. While Temu is in a class of its own - it's obvious that hyperscaling and postponing QC, moderation and compliance with a very American approach to safe harbour laws will not continue being the premier way to skirt laws for much longer.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  > Funnily the same regulations that aim to remove toxic products, make platforms more transparent, and hold platforms more accountable for breaking the law all are being attacked for encroaching on free speech. That's what a clever law looks like, it bundles things together. So now if someone complains about threats to free speech they can be told "Oh so you prefer toxic products, then? Think of the children!" in the same way you are doing.
  - dotandgtfo 1y ago
    That would make more sense if the law was limiting speech. But it has been clearly designed to not give governments the power to remove content/services/products that are not illegal. Content which is not directly illegal is covered by the voluntary code of conduct on disinformation [1]. If you can point out to me a provision which allows the governments to force platforms to remove content which is not explicitly illegal I'll be very impressed. Because it ain't there. It does say that algorithms should be tweaked to not spread "damaging disinformation" - e.g. reduce amplification of it. And it does say that these platforms shouldn't be allowing users who create disinformation to monetize their content like the good old Macedonian troll farms [2] But in the end - there are no sanctions. These are guidelines. And if platforms consistently ignore these and it turns into a systemic harm then fines can start piling up. But never for a single piece of content - just a systemic malpractice. Yes. It's a clever law because it doesn't give governments the power to remove content which is not illegal. But it does still force platforms to do something about their incentives they create for third-parties around content. And no. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and letting foreign companies self-regulate illegal content is frankly ludicrous considering their stellar track record of not giving a shit because it's the cheapest option. [1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/code-conduct-disinformation https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/code-conduc... [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/macedonian-fake-news-industry-and-the-2016-us-election/79F67A4F23148D230F120A3BD7E3384F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science...
shivasaxena 1y ago
I work for a Swiss POS firm. We buy all our peripherals like tablet stands etc, and merchandising from Temu since it's 5-10x time cheaper and is same or better quality. We are competing with well funded companies like lighspeed/toast so it's been great help for us. Funny incident our CEO just mentioned to me yesterday: She ordered stickers from a local shop without asking the price, and on delivery had to pay 200 CHF for 20 stickers so 10 CHF/sticker. Next time she ordered from temu and got them at 20 CHF for 200 stickers so 0.1 CHF/sticker. At least to me it's clear this is plain and simple regulatory capture by inefficient european retailers. In supermarkets I have to pay 12 EUR for a bottle opener that I can get for 2 EUR on temu. Amazon.de for example launched free delivery to estonia and other small european countries only recently post rise of temu. These actions by EU commision are vehemently anti-consumer and anti-business under the transparent guise of being pro-consumer and pro-business. Would recommend Bill Gurly's talk about regulatory capture if anyone is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=F9cO3-MLHOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=F9cO3-MLHOM
- seivan 1y ago
  [dead]
- fxtentacle 1y ago
  It’s all great to buy cheap stuff until you notice that those stickers are poisonous, your hand soap causes cancer and the Wi-Fi broke down because cheap uncertified electronics are causing interference all over your building. As someone living in the EU, I am happy that we have product safety regulations which are halfway reasonable. But as someone building hardware in the EU, I sure sometimes hope that I would be allowed to just skip all the environmental, safety, tax, and EMI rules. But that’s the price we have to pay so that we don’t accidentally get poisoned due to other people’s greed. And that’s why, even though it negatively affects my business, I fully support those EU regulations.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    True but bear in mind that most of those things are made in China whether you buy them here or on Temu, or Amazon and may even be the same product from the same factory. Platforms like Temu allow you to buy essentially direct from China and to cut many middlemen. In hardware you have state-of-the-art PCB and assembly providers in China, who don't "skip" anything compared to European ones. Of course you have bad apples, too. So there is a balance between paying more for quality and subsidising inefficiency and middlemen.
mytailorisrich 1y ago
> Their preliminary findings indicate that Temu engages in illegal practices like ... gamification of shopping. It's one thing to protect consumers, it's another to treat them like children by banning everything.
- amelius 1y ago
  Making them play by the rules is not the same thing as banning.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    I am commenting on quote that states that "gamification of shopping" (whatever that means in practice) is illegal. Surely "illegal" means "banned"?
    - amelius 1y ago
      A market requires rules. Allowing the seller to determine all the rules is a bad idea for obvious reasons. Do you have a suggestion of how to do this in a better way than letting an elected government decide about the rules?
      - mytailorisrich 1y ago
        Your two replies have nothing to do with my two comments, unfortunately. Why is "gamification of shopping" banned? EU law is on a slippery slope because under the stated aim of protecting consumers what it is doing is treating us like children and banning anything that the benevolent Commission think is 'bad' for us. This can end very badly for our freedoms (it has started). Now, I do agree with banning misleading practices and with enforcing information to consumers, but that's quite different: In a free society you make sure that people are informed and then you let them make their own decisions, you don't make those decisions on their behalf which implies that they can't be trusted to make the "correct" decision (with chilling ramifications for the democratic process).
lousken 1y ago
Can they block Temu completely if they fail to comply? Or just fine them?
juliangmp 1y ago
One can dream of it being banned permanently...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

68 points by saubeidl 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago

One to bear in mind when people say that the online platform rules are anti-American.

oblio 1y ago
Oh, don't worry, this will be rephrased as "it impedes Americans, too, so it's anti American". Despite the fact that the US is doing the exact same thing to other economies, especially China. China has great networking equipment, but it can't be sold in the US. China has great smartphone brands, those can't be sold, either. Chinese electric cars, same. China obviously is the OG regarding impeding or outright blocking competition with the 51% joint ventures. Of course it's also protectionism, everyone is doing it. However where I hear crickets is the actual public benefit/moral angle: Just because foreign companies that absolutely dominate these markets are the ones being fined the most, does that mean that the ideas behind the fines are wrong? Working for US companies operating in Europe, I would say that they (and probably Chinese companies - from what I hear) are natural targets: "move fast and break things", everything is US derived in spirit and in action and Europe doesn't work like that (the US is basically: you're smart and/or privileged and you get a decent or great life, if you're neither of those things, go live under a bridge). Can't both do a lot of gray area stuff to grow unicorns and also not expect to be punished for breaking lots of social eggs.
0xy 1y ago
Notably does not include application of the DMA, which applies exclusively to US tech and Euro tech is excluded by wordsmithed carve-outs.
- jeppester 1y ago
  > Euro tech is excluded by wordsmithed carve-outs. How so?
  - 0xy 1y ago
    Booking.com is excluded despite being Euro mega tech and being a blatant monopoly.

dotandgtfo 1y ago

Thanks to some frankly amazing American propaganda there's a surge of interest in free speech in Europe. Funnily the same regulations that aim to remove toxic products, make platforms more transparent, and hold platforms more accountable for breaking the law all are being attacked for encroaching on free speech. I don't see it succeeding. It's hard to explain just how much shit these digital platforms pull when serving a small market they don't care much about. People are rightfully pissed. It's seeped deeply into the public sphere the last ~8 years. Much more than I imagined possible even 2-3 years ago. Doubly so with the recent merging of the Republican party and technology leaders. While Temu is in a class of its own - it's obvious that hyperscaling and postponing QC, moderation and compliance with a very American approach to safe harbour laws will not continue being the premier way to skirt laws for much longer.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
> Funnily the same regulations that aim to remove toxic products, make platforms more transparent, and hold platforms more accountable for breaking the law all are being attacked for encroaching on free speech. That's what a clever law looks like, it bundles things together. So now if someone complains about threats to free speech they can be told "Oh so you prefer toxic products, then? Think of the children!" in the same way you are doing.
- dotandgtfo 1y ago
  That would make more sense if the law was limiting speech. But it has been clearly designed to not give governments the power to remove content/services/products that are not illegal. Content which is not directly illegal is covered by the voluntary code of conduct on disinformation [1]. If you can point out to me a provision which allows the governments to force platforms to remove content which is not explicitly illegal I'll be very impressed. Because it ain't there. It does say that algorithms should be tweaked to not spread "damaging disinformation" - e.g. reduce amplification of it. And it does say that these platforms shouldn't be allowing users who create disinformation to monetize their content like the good old Macedonian troll farms [2] But in the end - there are no sanctions. These are guidelines. And if platforms consistently ignore these and it turns into a systemic harm then fines can start piling up. But never for a single piece of content - just a systemic malpractice. Yes. It's a clever law because it doesn't give governments the power to remove content which is not illegal. But it does still force platforms to do something about their incentives they create for third-parties around content. And no. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and letting foreign companies self-regulate illegal content is frankly ludicrous considering their stellar track record of not giving a shit because it's the cheapest option. [1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/code-conduct-disinformation https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/code-conduc... [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/macedonian-fake-news-industry-and-the-2016-us-election/79F67A4F23148D230F120A3BD7E3384F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science...

shivasaxena 1y ago

I work for a Swiss POS firm. We buy all our peripherals like tablet stands etc, and merchandising from Temu since it's 5-10x time cheaper and is same or better quality. We are competing with well funded companies like lighspeed/toast so it's been great help for us. Funny incident our CEO just mentioned to me yesterday: She ordered stickers from a local shop without asking the price, and on delivery had to pay 200 CHF for 20 stickers so 10 CHF/sticker. Next time she ordered from temu and got them at 20 CHF for 200 stickers so 0.1 CHF/sticker. At least to me it's clear this is plain and simple regulatory capture by inefficient european retailers. In supermarkets I have to pay 12 EUR for a bottle opener that I can get for 2 EUR on temu. Amazon.de for example launched free delivery to estonia and other small european countries only recently post rise of temu. These actions by EU commision are vehemently anti-consumer and anti-business under the transparent guise of being pro-consumer and pro-business. Would recommend Bill Gurly's talk about regulatory capture if anyone is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=F9cO3-MLHOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=F9cO3-MLHOM

seivan 1y ago
[dead]
fxtentacle 1y ago
It’s all great to buy cheap stuff until you notice that those stickers are poisonous, your hand soap causes cancer and the Wi-Fi broke down because cheap uncertified electronics are causing interference all over your building. As someone living in the EU, I am happy that we have product safety regulations which are halfway reasonable. But as someone building hardware in the EU, I sure sometimes hope that I would be allowed to just skip all the environmental, safety, tax, and EMI rules. But that’s the price we have to pay so that we don’t accidentally get poisoned due to other people’s greed. And that’s why, even though it negatively affects my business, I fully support those EU regulations.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  True but bear in mind that most of those things are made in China whether you buy them here or on Temu, or Amazon and may even be the same product from the same factory. Platforms like Temu allow you to buy essentially direct from China and to cut many middlemen. In hardware you have state-of-the-art PCB and assembly providers in China, who don't "skip" anything compared to European ones. Of course you have bad apples, too. So there is a balance between paying more for quality and subsidising inefficiency and middlemen.

mytailorisrich 1y ago

> Their preliminary findings indicate that Temu engages in illegal practices like ... gamification of shopping. It's one thing to protect consumers, it's another to treat them like children by banning everything.

amelius 1y ago
Making them play by the rules is not the same thing as banning.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  I am commenting on quote that states that "gamification of shopping" (whatever that means in practice) is illegal. Surely "illegal" means "banned"?
  - amelius 1y ago
    A market requires rules. Allowing the seller to determine all the rules is a bad idea for obvious reasons. Do you have a suggestion of how to do this in a better way than letting an elected government decide about the rules?
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      Your two replies have nothing to do with my two comments, unfortunately. Why is "gamification of shopping" banned? EU law is on a slippery slope because under the stated aim of protecting consumers what it is doing is treating us like children and banning anything that the benevolent Commission think is 'bad' for us. This can end very badly for our freedoms (it has started). Now, I do agree with banning misleading practices and with enforcing information to consumers, but that's quite different: In a free society you make sure that people are informed and then you let them make their own decisions, you don't make those decisions on their behalf which implies that they can't be trusted to make the "correct" decision (with chilling ramifications for the democratic process).

lousken 1y ago

Can they block Temu completely if they fail to comply? Or just fine them?

juliangmp 1y ago

One can dream of it being banned permanently...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]