5 ms·

At this level it really is a case of purpose-of-the-system-is-what-it-does. The EU is clearly not interested in building up a tech sector. Factions in the EU, y

by roenxi 1y ago

At this level it really is a case of purpose-of-the-system-is-what-it-does. The EU is clearly not interested in building up a tech sector. Factions in the EU, yes. EU as a block, no. They've shown less than no interest; the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go. Nice place to live. Software companies tend to migrate to the US. I suspect that in the halls of power they would rather interpret "digital sovereignty" as a state where they, the sovereigns, have power in the digital world to mess with EU citizens online lives. It seems very optimistic to think that the EU is suddenly going to get interested in supporting software companies. Even philosophically, why bother changing suddenly just to do something they can ask the Americans to do? Economies require specialisation, everyone can't do everything. It isn't even a bad thing that the EU doesn't have a thriving software ecosystem but for the fact it appears to be driven by governmental hostility to freedom. Good companies can come from the US. Bad companies can come from the EU. They already have a good FOSS ecosystem. The only problem is the EU seems to be more likely to bring in something like chat control and beat down anyone who achieves enormous success.

n4r9 1y ago
> large tech companies which is where the market wants to go Could you expand on that? Is there something inherent about the tech industry that makes large companies desirable?
- roenxi 1y ago
  Imagine one actor in the tech space charges $/whatever which is slightly cheaper than the next nearest rival. Everyone flocks to that company and they become fabulously wealthy. Because of that effect the market tends to centralise. Another way to look at it is some company is the best at whatever, everyone wants to go with that company and it is technically possible for that company to serve everyone. So there is the same tendency for companies to get very large. Obviously oversimplifying, there are a lot of ways the tendency manifests. Metcalfe's law and all that. That applies less in the physical world because distance is a factor. If there is some hairdresser in Silicon Valley who does amazing haircuts I'm still not going to go there to get my hair done. But I'm happy to watch YouTube which is ultimately being coordinated from nearby to that hairdresser. The issue is, based on how things have actually played out, the EU is not the place to be if you're a hyper-efficient company serving a huge number of people with huge capital reserves. I assume the tax system is the root cause.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    In other words it's more about whether the EU market is favourable relative to other markets?
    - roenxi 1y ago
      Not exactly. The general centralisation trend is a result of relative forces. The EU's suitability for a software ecosystem might be relative or absolute. It is like if one country bans encryption and another doesn't. Any company that relies on encryption will be in the other country, but even if there were no alternatives they still wouldn't be in the first. They've been banned. So the first is relatively unfavourable, but in an absolute sense the same companies just won't exist there. In the case of the EU, relative inferiority to the US in software makes the situation more extreme, but they probably couldn't maintain the same ecosystem even if they were the entire market. People get very excited about breaking up large companies, but as far as I can see there needs to be a behemoth like Google to fund Gmail and YouTube. The market price for something like Gmail is more like $5/mo unless there is an advertising giant involved who sells the data and can find ads buyers anywhere in the world. I don't think it is obvious that the EU would tolerate a home-grown Google.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        > The market price for something like Gmail is more like $5/mo Proton Mail has a largely similar feature set on the free tier, yet appears to generate steady profit from paid subscriptions.
        roenxi 1y ago
        Their free tier is strictly inferior to Google's though, Gmail is 15GB storage free, proton is 15GB paid. Coincidentally that is the difference between me being able to use the service for free and not.
        n4r9 1y ago
        Wow! I've been using Gmail since it was in beta and I'm on less than 6GB. Do you get a lot of big attachments or something?
- SiempreViernes 1y ago
  The creation of a monopoly is always desirable for the company owners, so tech isn't unique in this respect. I think the main distinguishing feature is that big IT companies are new, so the bad outcomes of tech monopolies are only now being recognised and so competition authorities have been slow to act.
  - gessha 1y ago
    Innovative monopolies are supposed to be temporary because IP and trade secrets only get you so far. They’re not supposed to be state-backed, sponsored and protected, at least not in a country with functional antitrust laws. The US is also exceptional in its capacity to flex its dollar muscles and enforce DMCA on other countries stifling innovation.
Xelbair 1y ago
>the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go. All unregulated markets over time tend to strive for monopoly, as it takes just a short period in which a dominant faction emerges - which kills the capitalist system. Your statement is pure tautology. EU is hostile to tech and innovation due to top-down approach and working against market forces for sure, but market forces aren't morally good, they just exist - there's no virtue in them. What needs to change is a shift from top-down approach to one where they setup a framework for competitive AND profitable industry. But this will never happen - EU is too rife with internal conflicts of interest between countries as they are also competing with each other. It is stuck in-between trade union and federation, and reaps downsides of both.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  This is complete nonsense. Free markets have been operating for centuries and still most markets are nowhere close to monopoly.
  - thefz 1y ago
    Not that the rest of his comments show some brilliant reasoning to be honest :)
  - Xelbair 1y ago
    find me single unregulated unrestricted free market that has been operating for centuries. the ancap paradise.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      You are confusing free and unrestricted markets. A free market means that reality is accurately is reflected in prices, so people can make a free and informed choice. I think free and unrestricted can't exit, but that's just my opinion.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
wkat4242 1y ago
> They've shown less than no interest; the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go. That last part is certainly true, and the big tech companies in the US and their constant abuse of customers show why we don't want it. We just need a different type of market here. We should lock out the American companies more. We can't play on the same field because we have very different values. The US care only about money, we care more about ethics. If the market wants to go there the market is wrong and we need to curtail it. Having unrestricted capitalism isn't a European value.
- kakacik 1y ago
  Sure, but race to the bottom brings best price/value ratio that most consumers value above some nicer underlying ethics. What race to the bottom means long term for society, ie its annihilation of middle class and proper misery for the poor who will forever stay poor to be exploited cheaply is another topic. Btw don't get me wrong, that ethics push sounds nice, all patting our backs in our little bubble slowly sliding down, but we are what, 7% of the global population? Economically still more significant, but unless we get our shit together right now and become more competitive we will slide into mediocrity soon, no way to avoid that. Chinese will easily push us away and steamroll over any tech we are still proud about. There is absolutely no reason ridiculous social and welfare systems should be in place. Ie in France, they interviewed some rioter lady - she is doing some cinematography work when she wants, but otherwise living in free apartment in heart of Paris, and getting additional welfare from state. While protesting against evil capitalism which pays for it all, expecting to be richer because... ?. She herself is insignificant, but there are fuck millions of such spoiled people out of touch with current reality out there, who grew up with very twisted socialist/communist ideologies, while expecting a stellar economy to fund their little resistance to hands feeding them. Ultra-protected corrupt and inefficient state employees that each state has too many of. There is absolutely 0 reason for any sort of green deal while rest of the world doesn't give a nanofraction of a fuck, not in 2025, not when facing a massive decline up on horizon. Thats self-harm par excellence and a great ammunition for most of eastern EU bloc and extreme right wing to get more popular, just pointing how ridiculous all that has become. But now there is no age limit for gender change, really something that all parents of kids across whole Europe need to hear now. Look, we all want to help saving the planet, but this political super-costly corrupt meh will only achieve our poverty and instability, nothing more. If you want future for Europe, I mean realistic and achievable path, look no further than ie Switzerland. Still has most European values, has stronger middle class than any EU country, has way more actual freedom than any EU country has (not joking here, look it up), but also most capitalistic country in old continent. Simple, uneducated people keep blabbing about nazi gold (still in 2025), or some evil bankers or some other hoaxes while economy is based on a very different mix of income, and primarily a population which doesn't mind putting in some hard work when needed, and not just envying and complaining all the time and expecting to be taken care of when not even trying to contribute to society by working. The difference between them and literally any other EU country is striking, and so is their future. But good luck having western EU egos accepting that somebody figured out a better way, not happening.
danaris 1y ago
I think this paints it as more black-and-white, more set in stone, than it really is. True, the EU has not shown such an interest in the past. But that was when it could mostly trust that the US would, y'know, act like a sane and vaguely reasonable nation. It's been less than a year since the orange menace was re-elected, and the wheels often take a while to turn.

by roenxi 1y ago

n4r9 1y ago

> large tech companies which is where the market wants to go Could you expand on that? Is there something inherent about the tech industry that makes large companies desirable?

roenxi 1y ago
Imagine one actor in the tech space charges $/whatever which is slightly cheaper than the next nearest rival. Everyone flocks to that company and they become fabulously wealthy. Because of that effect the market tends to centralise. Another way to look at it is some company is the best at whatever, everyone wants to go with that company and it is technically possible for that company to serve everyone. So there is the same tendency for companies to get very large. Obviously oversimplifying, there are a lot of ways the tendency manifests. Metcalfe's law and all that. That applies less in the physical world because distance is a factor. If there is some hairdresser in Silicon Valley who does amazing haircuts I'm still not going to go there to get my hair done. But I'm happy to watch YouTube which is ultimately being coordinated from nearby to that hairdresser. The issue is, based on how things have actually played out, the EU is not the place to be if you're a hyper-efficient company serving a huge number of people with huge capital reserves. I assume the tax system is the root cause.
- n4r9 1y ago
  In other words it's more about whether the EU market is favourable relative to other markets?
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Not exactly. The general centralisation trend is a result of relative forces. The EU's suitability for a software ecosystem might be relative or absolute. It is like if one country bans encryption and another doesn't. Any company that relies on encryption will be in the other country, but even if there were no alternatives they still wouldn't be in the first. They've been banned. So the first is relatively unfavourable, but in an absolute sense the same companies just won't exist there. In the case of the EU, relative inferiority to the US in software makes the situation more extreme, but they probably couldn't maintain the same ecosystem even if they were the entire market. People get very excited about breaking up large companies, but as far as I can see there needs to be a behemoth like Google to fund Gmail and YouTube. The market price for something like Gmail is more like $5/mo unless there is an advertising giant involved who sells the data and can find ads buyers anywhere in the world. I don't think it is obvious that the EU would tolerate a home-grown Google.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      > The market price for something like Gmail is more like $5/mo Proton Mail has a largely similar feature set on the free tier, yet appears to generate steady profit from paid subscriptions.
      - roenxi 1y ago
        Their free tier is strictly inferior to Google's though, Gmail is 15GB storage free, proton is 15GB paid. Coincidentally that is the difference between me being able to use the service for free and not.
        n4r9 1y ago
        Wow! I've been using Gmail since it was in beta and I'm on less than 6GB. Do you get a lot of big attachments or something?
SiempreViernes 1y ago
The creation of a monopoly is always desirable for the company owners, so tech isn't unique in this respect. I think the main distinguishing feature is that big IT companies are new, so the bad outcomes of tech monopolies are only now being recognised and so competition authorities have been slow to act.
- gessha 1y ago
  Innovative monopolies are supposed to be temporary because IP and trade secrets only get you so far. They’re not supposed to be state-backed, sponsored and protected, at least not in a country with functional antitrust laws. The US is also exceptional in its capacity to flex its dollar muscles and enforce DMCA on other countries stifling innovation.

Xelbair 1y ago

>the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go. All unregulated markets over time tend to strive for monopoly, as it takes just a short period in which a dominant faction emerges - which kills the capitalist system. Your statement is pure tautology. EU is hostile to tech and innovation due to top-down approach and working against market forces for sure, but market forces aren't morally good, they just exist - there's no virtue in them. What needs to change is a shift from top-down approach to one where they setup a framework for competitive AND profitable industry. But this will never happen - EU is too rife with internal conflicts of interest between countries as they are also competing with each other. It is stuck in-between trade union and federation, and reaps downsides of both.

terminalshort 1y ago
This is complete nonsense. Free markets have been operating for centuries and still most markets are nowhere close to monopoly.
- thefz 1y ago
  Not that the rest of his comments show some brilliant reasoning to be honest :)
- Xelbair 1y ago
  find me single unregulated unrestricted free market that has been operating for centuries. the ancap paradise.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    You are confusing free and unrestricted markets. A free market means that reality is accurately is reflected in prices, so people can make a free and informed choice. I think free and unrestricted can't exit, but that's just my opinion.
  - terminalshort 1y ago

wkat4242 1y ago

> They've shown less than no interest; the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go. That last part is certainly true, and the big tech companies in the US and their constant abuse of customers show why we don't want it. We just need a different type of market here. We should lock out the American companies more. We can't play on the same field because we have very different values. The US care only about money, we care more about ethics. If the market wants to go there the market is wrong and we need to curtail it. Having unrestricted capitalism isn't a European value.

kakacik 1y ago
Sure, but race to the bottom brings best price/value ratio that most consumers value above some nicer underlying ethics. What race to the bottom means long term for society, ie its annihilation of middle class and proper misery for the poor who will forever stay poor to be exploited cheaply is another topic. Btw don't get me wrong, that ethics push sounds nice, all patting our backs in our little bubble slowly sliding down, but we are what, 7% of the global population? Economically still more significant, but unless we get our shit together right now and become more competitive we will slide into mediocrity soon, no way to avoid that. Chinese will easily push us away and steamroll over any tech we are still proud about. There is absolutely no reason ridiculous social and welfare systems should be in place. Ie in France, they interviewed some rioter lady - she is doing some cinematography work when she wants, but otherwise living in free apartment in heart of Paris, and getting additional welfare from state. While protesting against evil capitalism which pays for it all, expecting to be richer because... ?. She herself is insignificant, but there are fuck millions of such spoiled people out of touch with current reality out there, who grew up with very twisted socialist/communist ideologies, while expecting a stellar economy to fund their little resistance to hands feeding them. Ultra-protected corrupt and inefficient state employees that each state has too many of. There is absolutely 0 reason for any sort of green deal while rest of the world doesn't give a nanofraction of a fuck, not in 2025, not when facing a massive decline up on horizon. Thats self-harm par excellence and a great ammunition for most of eastern EU bloc and extreme right wing to get more popular, just pointing how ridiculous all that has become. But now there is no age limit for gender change, really something that all parents of kids across whole Europe need to hear now. Look, we all want to help saving the planet, but this political super-costly corrupt meh will only achieve our poverty and instability, nothing more. If you want future for Europe, I mean realistic and achievable path, look no further than ie Switzerland. Still has most European values, has stronger middle class than any EU country, has way more actual freedom than any EU country has (not joking here, look it up), but also most capitalistic country in old continent. Simple, uneducated people keep blabbing about nazi gold (still in 2025), or some evil bankers or some other hoaxes while economy is based on a very different mix of income, and primarily a population which doesn't mind putting in some hard work when needed, and not just envying and complaining all the time and expecting to be taken care of when not even trying to contribute to society by working. The difference between them and literally any other EU country is striking, and so is their future. But good luck having western EU egos accepting that somebody figured out a better way, not happening.

danaris 1y ago

I think this paints it as more black-and-white, more set in stone, than it really is. True, the EU has not shown such an interest in the past. But that was when it could mostly trust that the US would, y'know, act like a sane and vaguely reasonable nation. It's been less than a year since the orange menace was re-elected, and the wheels often take a while to turn.