4 ms·

The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation. The EU has 450M (+80M for UK & similar non

The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation. The EU has 450M (+80M for UK & similar non-eu countries that are likely to follow the EU on such regulations) population to the US' 350M. The moment the likes of Google, or Meta, or Microsoft, or whomever else leave the EU, they immediately create a market gap. A market gap that will then in short order be filled with a European company that, because of the population sizes, has a notable comparative advantage to the US tech company. + As much as HN's readership loathes to admit it, regulations like this are "Good, Actually". Google's monopolist practices are bad for both advertisers and services showing ads. Any would-be competitor that arises from Google leaving the market would, by virtue of being forced by law to not be so shitty, be the better option. (And yes, this does also apply to pretty much all of the other big tech regulations as well.) Like, c'mon. "Monopolies bad" is capitalism 101. Even the US' regulators thought Google was going too far.

linotype 1y ago
Nm
- immibis 1y ago
  More importantly though, why haven't they? A lot of it is a because the US brands are more recognizable and cheaper (due to dumping) and grow faster (due to the USA's VC glut). IIRC a company like AirBNB was started in Europe, and was slowly growing, and couldn't get investment because "who would want this?" and then AirBNB was created, and then arrived in Europe, and they still couldn't get investment because "who wants a ripoff clone of AirBNB?"
  - nonethewiser 1y ago
    What do you mean by "dumping?" It sounds like you're just talking about VC.
    - PhantomHour 1y ago
      "Dumping" in the context of international trade; Predatory pricing. The standard model for tech firms has been to run at enormous losses to push competition into bankruptcy or steal their users through subsidized service. No European social media company could compete with e.g. Twitter, running at a loss for TWELVE years. In more recent years, it's things like Uber. Subsidizing ride costs to crush existing taxi services & European taxi startups. This is all, ostensibly, illegal under international law. You can't do it for cars or commodity goods. It's just not been enforced on the tech industry.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
        Could you please share how its illegal under international law and why I couldn't do it for cars or commodity goods. Some resources would definitely help me out here! Also I think that I doubt how enforceable this is in tech industry as for the most part, they are selling a service and each service is different and thus have different price points and therefore the company should have the ability to decide prices technically.. so if they want to sell at a loss, theoretically nothing stops them from selling the service at a loss. But I feel like the same logic applies to commodity goods. If two parties want to decide that they want to buy/sell at lower prices, why does the govt. interfere b/w them? Does this not impact their rights/freedom?
        PhantomHour 1y ago
        To be slightly rude, there is just a wikipedia article by the name "Dumping"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) The actual legal mechanics are complicated; "Illegal under international law" here specifically entails "WTO agreements allow retaliation in response to dumping". > and why I couldn't do it for cars or commodity goods. Specifically, it's more enforced. Governments care about their conventional industry. The way this'd look is say, China providing state subsidy to certain industries in order to artificially lower the price of those goods, making them cheaper than US-based industry could produce, with the specific intent of driving US industry out of business. Just googling "predatory pricing" and "dumping" will get you examples. > Also I think that I doubt how enforceable this is in tech industry as for the most part, they are selling a service and each service is different and thus have different price points and therefore the company should have the ability to decide prices technically. The problem for tech is this difficulty in assessing "real value" and the assumption that running at a loss for extended periods is "normal" for tech companies. For a clear-cut example, consider Uber, who paid drivers more than they charged the passenger(s). This is obviously predatory. Uber has tricks like moving insurance/maintenance to the driver's wallet, but a taxi can't be cheaper than what they pay the driver. > why does the govt. interfere b/w them? Does this not impact their rights/freedom? It does impact their freedom, but the reason why the government intervenes is long-term health of the market. Things like a 'firesale' because you're going out of business, or moving to a new warehouse, etc, are fine. A single store (even a big-box one) going out of business won't crush the entire market and it's only of short duration. The problem is that dumping/predatory pricing is a strategy to maintain a monopoly. (Or in the cases of extensive investment funding, build one) Again, consider something like Uber (but the same applies to any "rental"/gig-economy company). They sell rides below cost paid for by their huge pile of investment money, no other taxi company can compete. All the competing taxis go out of business. Uber can now raise the prices to obscene levels and cash in. Whenever someone tries to start a new taxi company, it'll be small and local, so Uber just lowers their ride prices in that region again until they go out of business. And because they're small they don't have as much money as Uber so they'll go bankrupt first. Uber keeps the monopoly. Such monopolies are long-term bad for the entire economy. On an international level, it's China and steel again. China subsidizes their industry, industry in other countries can't compete and goes bankrupt, China can now raise their prices.
  - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
    A key focus on VC glut. I think that another idea to consider here is that the VC's just spend like billions on projects and they don't care about consequences, all they want in the end is profit and maybe growth.. And so, maybe something like airbnb gets the money and expands which effectively removes the competition, making a monopoly who might get fined or what not but still in the end, it all turned perfect for VC. VC funding (I think) drives on monopoly creation. Maybe that's why we were seeing a huge amount of VC funding in AI because they think that they want to monopolize "intelligence" this time so its the end goal as they are trying to monopolize the means towards creation... I really want to learn how US got VC trapped. The whole economy's system issue arises from VC. Like, AI hype started from VC spending billions which then justified the absurd AI growth in things like magnificent 7 on stock market. We really have these billionaires pulling quite deals which secretly shape the world to a much larger extent and they don't do it because of some evil reason but a plain old reason: money. But the fact that all they care about money makes the companies inside VC justify doing evil things because morality isn't the end goal, helping isn't the end goal. Its money and more money and even more money. Guess what? Exploitation pays the most short term and these VC's prefer short term too. VC and corruption seems to be the worst issues that I think really influence way way more of the world secretly and thus making "democracy" as one HN user pointed out on a different thread, a "copium for the masses"
delusional 1y ago
> The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation. My hot take is that if they want to leave, then they can fuck right off. If you think your desires, profits, or business practices extend beyond democracy, then I don't need your business. Private enterprise should support and assist democracy, not the other way around (there's obviously some leeway there, but by and large).
Workaccount2 1y ago
The EU has been chronically unable to fill the gaps in their economy. If you look at the list of europes biggest companies, it's the same companies as it was 30 years ago...automotive and oil and gas. There are no major tech companies in Europe, which is so insane it's comical. Let that sink in...a continent full of intelligent tech workers has never been able to get a major tech company off the ground. Regulation may be good, but understand, actually, recognize, that it is also suffocating. People bragging that they have no weeds in their fields, when they have no fresh crops either....
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - croes 1y ago
    Without those „Fachkräfte“ the healthcare system would crash. And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil. https://companiesmarketcap.com/european-union/largest-companies-in-the-eu-by-market-cap/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/european-union/largest-compan... Maybe therefore the downvotes
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >Without those „Fachkräfte“ the healthcare system would crash. Really? How many of the illegal boat immigrants work in the German healthcare sector? Because last time I checked they were mostly EU workers who got their job before crossing the border. Actual doctors and nurses don't need to cross borders illegally to get a job. I wasn't talking about skilled, LEGAL immigrants like doctors and nurses, I was talking about the other „Fachkräfte“ that tend to make the news. >And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil. Maybe he meant in the tech sector. Because I can't take the LVMH sweatshop seriously even if they're making a lot of money. And the other companies on the list, FANG are worth more than all of them combined. I think even Nvidia is worth more than all of them.
      - 1y ago
formerly_proven 1y ago
> The EU has 450M (+80M for UK & similar non-eu countries that are likely to follow the EU on such regulations) population to the US' 350M. Europeans are much poorer on average though, so actual revenue figures are rather the inverse of these population figures (they actually skew much more to the US than that, but anyhow).
- blackqueeriroh 1y ago
  Mmmm, you should look at distribution figures.
- jjani 1y ago
  The EU is still a massive profit center for these companies. Over 2025 Alphabet's revenue was around $170B in US and $100B in EMEA. Imagine if Google couldn't operate in half of the US, and how impactful that would be. Yet EMEA revenue is higher than that.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Any company will rather get pennies from me, than none at all. Many pennies together add up.
- ThePowerOfFuet 1y ago
  >Europeans are much poorer on average though Some people are so poor that all they have is money.

linotype 1y ago

immibis 1y ago
More importantly though, why haven't they? A lot of it is a because the US brands are more recognizable and cheaper (due to dumping) and grow faster (due to the USA's VC glut). IIRC a company like AirBNB was started in Europe, and was slowly growing, and couldn't get investment because "who would want this?" and then AirBNB was created, and then arrived in Europe, and they still couldn't get investment because "who wants a ripoff clone of AirBNB?"
- nonethewiser 1y ago
  What do you mean by "dumping?" It sounds like you're just talking about VC.
  - PhantomHour 1y ago
    "Dumping" in the context of international trade; Predatory pricing. The standard model for tech firms has been to run at enormous losses to push competition into bankruptcy or steal their users through subsidized service. No European social media company could compete with e.g. Twitter, running at a loss for TWELVE years. In more recent years, it's things like Uber. Subsidizing ride costs to crush existing taxi services & European taxi startups. This is all, ostensibly, illegal under international law. You can't do it for cars or commodity goods. It's just not been enforced on the tech industry.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
      Could you please share how its illegal under international law and why I couldn't do it for cars or commodity goods. Some resources would definitely help me out here! Also I think that I doubt how enforceable this is in tech industry as for the most part, they are selling a service and each service is different and thus have different price points and therefore the company should have the ability to decide prices technically.. so if they want to sell at a loss, theoretically nothing stops them from selling the service at a loss. But I feel like the same logic applies to commodity goods. If two parties want to decide that they want to buy/sell at lower prices, why does the govt. interfere b/w them? Does this not impact their rights/freedom?
      - PhantomHour 1y ago
        To be slightly rude, there is just a wikipedia article by the name "Dumping"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) The actual legal mechanics are complicated; "Illegal under international law" here specifically entails "WTO agreements allow retaliation in response to dumping". > and why I couldn't do it for cars or commodity goods. Specifically, it's more enforced. Governments care about their conventional industry. The way this'd look is say, China providing state subsidy to certain industries in order to artificially lower the price of those goods, making them cheaper than US-based industry could produce, with the specific intent of driving US industry out of business. Just googling "predatory pricing" and "dumping" will get you examples. > Also I think that I doubt how enforceable this is in tech industry as for the most part, they are selling a service and each service is different and thus have different price points and therefore the company should have the ability to decide prices technically. The problem for tech is this difficulty in assessing "real value" and the assumption that running at a loss for extended periods is "normal" for tech companies. For a clear-cut example, consider Uber, who paid drivers more than they charged the passenger(s). This is obviously predatory. Uber has tricks like moving insurance/maintenance to the driver's wallet, but a taxi can't be cheaper than what they pay the driver. > why does the govt. interfere b/w them? Does this not impact their rights/freedom? It does impact their freedom, but the reason why the government intervenes is long-term health of the market. Things like a 'firesale' because you're going out of business, or moving to a new warehouse, etc, are fine. A single store (even a big-box one) going out of business won't crush the entire market and it's only of short duration. The problem is that dumping/predatory pricing is a strategy to maintain a monopoly. (Or in the cases of extensive investment funding, build one) Again, consider something like Uber (but the same applies to any "rental"/gig-economy company). They sell rides below cost paid for by their huge pile of investment money, no other taxi company can compete. All the competing taxis go out of business. Uber can now raise the prices to obscene levels and cash in. Whenever someone tries to start a new taxi company, it'll be small and local, so Uber just lowers their ride prices in that region again until they go out of business. And because they're small they don't have as much money as Uber so they'll go bankrupt first. Uber keeps the monopoly. Such monopolies are long-term bad for the entire economy. On an international level, it's China and steel again. China subsidizes their industry, industry in other countries can't compete and goes bankrupt, China can now raise their prices.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  A key focus on VC glut. I think that another idea to consider here is that the VC's just spend like billions on projects and they don't care about consequences, all they want in the end is profit and maybe growth.. And so, maybe something like airbnb gets the money and expands which effectively removes the competition, making a monopoly who might get fined or what not but still in the end, it all turned perfect for VC. VC funding (I think) drives on monopoly creation. Maybe that's why we were seeing a huge amount of VC funding in AI because they think that they want to monopolize "intelligence" this time so its the end goal as they are trying to monopolize the means towards creation... I really want to learn how US got VC trapped. The whole economy's system issue arises from VC. Like, AI hype started from VC spending billions which then justified the absurd AI growth in things like magnificent 7 on stock market. We really have these billionaires pulling quite deals which secretly shape the world to a much larger extent and they don't do it because of some evil reason but a plain old reason: money. But the fact that all they care about money makes the companies inside VC justify doing evil things because morality isn't the end goal, helping isn't the end goal. Its money and more money and even more money. Guess what? Exploitation pays the most short term and these VC's prefer short term too. VC and corruption seems to be the worst issues that I think really influence way way more of the world secretly and thus making "democracy" as one HN user pointed out on a different thread, a "copium for the masses"

delusional 1y ago

> The entire idea of "Oh they'll leave" is ridiculous, an empty threat from billionaires who are afraid of regulation. My hot take is that if they want to leave, then they can fuck right off. If you think your desires, profits, or business practices extend beyond democracy, then I don't need your business. Private enterprise should support and assist democracy, not the other way around (there's obviously some leeway there, but by and large).

Workaccount2 1y ago

The EU has been chronically unable to fill the gaps in their economy. If you look at the list of europes biggest companies, it's the same companies as it was 30 years ago...automotive and oil and gas. There are no major tech companies in Europe, which is so insane it's comical. Let that sink in...a continent full of intelligent tech workers has never been able to get a major tech company off the ground. Regulation may be good, but understand, actually, recognize, that it is also suffocating. People bragging that they have no weeds in their fields, when they have no fresh crops either....

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
[flagged]
- croes 1y ago
  Without those „Fachkräfte“ the healthcare system would crash. And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil. https://companiesmarketcap.com/european-union/largest-companies-in-the-eu-by-market-cap/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/european-union/largest-compan... Maybe therefore the downvotes
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >Without those „Fachkräfte“ the healthcare system would crash. Really? How many of the illegal boat immigrants work in the German healthcare sector? Because last time I checked they were mostly EU workers who got their job before crossing the border. Actual doctors and nurses don't need to cross borders illegally to get a job. I wasn't talking about skilled, LEGAL immigrants like doctors and nurses, I was talking about the other „Fachkräfte“ that tend to make the news. >And the biggest companies aren’t automotive, gas and oil. Maybe he meant in the tech sector. Because I can't take the LVMH sweatshop seriously even if they're making a lot of money. And the other companies on the list, FANG are worth more than all of them combined. I think even Nvidia is worth more than all of them.
    - 1y ago

formerly_proven 1y ago

> The EU has 450M (+80M for UK & similar non-eu countries that are likely to follow the EU on such regulations) population to the US' 350M. Europeans are much poorer on average though, so actual revenue figures are rather the inverse of these population figures (they actually skew much more to the US than that, but anyhow).

blackqueeriroh 1y ago
Mmmm, you should look at distribution figures.
jjani 1y ago
The EU is still a massive profit center for these companies. Over 2025 Alphabet's revenue was around $170B in US and $100B in EMEA. Imagine if Google couldn't operate in half of the US, and how impactful that would be. Yet EMEA revenue is higher than that.
pjmlp 1y ago
Any company will rather get pennies from me, than none at all. Many pennies together add up.
ThePowerOfFuet 1y ago
>Europeans are much poorer on average though Some people are so poor that all they have is money.