4 ms·

>EU isn't ever going to have its own "tech" industry as long as US has full access to EU markets and IMHO the ChatControl thing is totally unrelated. It's even

>EU isn't ever going to have its own "tech" industry as long as US has full access to EU markets and IMHO the ChatControl thing is totally unrelated. It's even simpler - EU does not foster any form of framework for growing any industry, they incentivize things that were already successful elsewhere and were found necessary to have in EU. It's all top-down in form of EU grants/benefits/whatevers. And even then - those grants are are tied up with basically pre-planned prince2 style project management that makes deviating from them hard, and sometimes impossible. Purchases have to be pre-planned, for almost anything. >ChatControl, IMHO is just some career move of some politicians from the ultra low corruption small northern countries where people trust the government way too much. They appear to believe that they can solve some issues with it. Not that different from all the governments who want control and each one wants as much control as possible. Yes but no - it comes from Denmark, which has a lot of issues with overstepping legal bounds when it comes to data gathering and privacy. It seems more like attempt to legalize those using excuse of "EU forced us to adopt it :)". >I think the age control attempts are much more interesting and consequential. Why? Because bots don't have age. If implemented in a way that preserves anonymity while ensuring that the things are written by a real person(or at least has someone responsible for it even if its AI written) it can actually solve the bot problem and social manipulation problems like people from other countries pushing an agenda that doesn't actually have organic roots in the society. I think it's quite the opposite - identity fraud will become more profitable, while "open" internet will be infantilized into child-safe zone. Full of bots, but now any real form of communication will have your full doxx attached to it - doesn't matter if visible or not, just possiblity of it is enough. You will self censor yourself just in case. Also all of those systems do not preserve anonymity, and basically are another mass surveillance tool. It is just another step towards ChatControl, one surveils, other forces self-censorship. While reverse would make sense - make children only internet that's actively monitored, accessible only via government issued smartcard/e-sim/thingy, while leaving it up to parents if their child should or should not access real internet.

mrtksn 1y ago
EU doesn't have top down control, in fact EU has very little control over anything and that's why its ineffective in its current form despite having enormous wealth as a block. All these initiative this initiative that are, IMHO, just political FOMO and I don't expect them to amount to much. EU doesn't have the capacity to plan stuff, even under grave danger from the war in Ukraine EU barely coordinates building some bombs. EU is able to bite only when each country is coordinated well enough to implement some laws, i.e. GDPR thing bites through the regulators of each country and not through EU. If EU eventually becomes a state then thing can change but thats not the case at the moment. EU is not a communist state and doesn't have a top down planning, its a coordination centre for 27 free market countries and its up to the EU capitalist and engineers to come up with technology and investment. They actually do, that's why EU is huge exporter of stuff. Believe it or not, there's more in this world than coding, there are all kinds of engineers that deal with atoms and electricity. However the "tech" doesn't flourish in Europe because doesn't make economic sense. US has full access to EU markets, they already have the know how and capital concentration, so why bother to re-invent the wheel in EU? Just go do it in US or do work for the US companies cementing their position even further. US can afford not to have much regulations over the "tech" because they have the HQs and all the important people in SV. The moment some company that's not from US becomes big they take it down. TikTok for example, they forced a sale to fking Oracle, US doesn't allow foreign communications on its land. Its a semi-open knowledge that US government is working with those "tech" companies to control its own population and interests. I don't know, if the US way of doing this is the better one, maybe EU should just force all the US "tech" companies to sell to EU owners just like with TikTok. Then get rid of all these regulations and just summon the local people when things go bad, like the "wrong" ideas spread like the way it happened on TikTik with Israel-Palestine conflict. The US way is like, oh you are not cooperating and not pushing the right agenda? Oh that's fine but too bad the new employment rules will hurt you and you can forget about this datacenter permit thing.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  I'm not saying they have top-down control. I'm saying they are trying top-down initiatives - the difference is subtle but important. This is about attitude and how attempts are made - not how successful they are at it. This isn't central planning - this is just plan ineptitude that's sabotaged by inter-country conflicts of interests, with extremely bloated beaurocracy - sometimes just to have enough representation from each party. EU is stuck between worst of both worlds, and i don't see anything changing for better in here without a shift - either towards more looser union akin to trade union(original idea) or a federation.
  - mrtksn 1y ago
    They aren't try, they don't have tools to even try doing these things. But I agree, it needs to shift to a new format. Ideally federation because as we see with Greenland and Switzerland being a small independent country comes with significant risks in this new world order.
    - Xelbair 1y ago
      Personally i would prefer trade union, as EU countries have shown themselves already incapable of offering support in case of any real threat due to conflicting interests, and federation would most likely end up being run by Germany/France duopoly. also look at energy and AI initiatives for examples of top down initiatives. In most non-western EU countries the only realistic way to get a tech startup going is via EU grant process which is extremely top down with keywords they want for specific year, and basically prevents any form of pivoting as a business. It's not some top brass of party, soviet style, making top-down decisions. Its the whole system that's designed to operate that way - bureaucrats here and there incentivized to do so, committee here and there setting up guidelines for results. what they should do is to setup a framework in which results emerge.
      - mrtksn 1y ago
        Whatever it becomes, IMHO it needs to have much more clear set of responsibilities and adequate tools to fulfill those duties. Currently everything is too patchy, the currency the passport the agencies like ESA, the trade barriers within itself - everything needs a re-do in the integration or scaling down the scope.
thefz 1y ago
> EU does not foster any form of framework for growing any industry You are right. Pharma, automotive, financial in EU all come from the US. Companies like Nokia, Siemens, Bosch, BMW... all american names.
- alephnerd 1y ago
  All those industries were fostered by individual countries with little-to-no transnational support from the EU. On top of that, traditional European industries like Automotive have not kept up with challengers, the financial industry across Europe itself is morose in comparison to similar markets in the US or China, and European Pharma itself is overwhelmingly clustered in Switzerland which is not an EU member. Nokia itself was at the brink of collapse in the early 2010s, and Siemens and Bosch have faced increasing stress at the bottom market from Chinese players and at the upper market by American players, plus states like the US and India required significant firewalls between those companies operations in their countries and Europe. Long story short, while individual European states may have been able to build innovative companies, that muscle has largely atrophied over the past 20 years.
  - mrtksn 1y ago
    Why would politicians do any of that? Did United States House of Representatives invent anything? All these EU companies are all private enterprises and they are %100 from a country in EU because there's no such thing as EU as a country, EU doesn't have companies(beyond entities created to fulfill certain functions). This too may change soon because they are looking into introducing a 28th regime which would be like virtual EU member. I think there's huge confusion on what is EU. BTW, EU has roots in "European Coal and Steel Community" and role in forming the Airbus but even in these ase it was just a facilitator. All these expectation that are based on imaginary things(don't take it personally please, I see these things all the time) shows that EU desperately needs to become a country by its own right. Its so confusing to understand what EU can and can't do, what organization is under EU control and how much.
    - alephnerd 1y ago

mrtksn 1y ago

EU doesn't have top down control, in fact EU has very little control over anything and that's why its ineffective in its current form despite having enormous wealth as a block. All these initiative this initiative that are, IMHO, just political FOMO and I don't expect them to amount to much. EU doesn't have the capacity to plan stuff, even under grave danger from the war in Ukraine EU barely coordinates building some bombs. EU is able to bite only when each country is coordinated well enough to implement some laws, i.e. GDPR thing bites through the regulators of each country and not through EU. If EU eventually becomes a state then thing can change but thats not the case at the moment. EU is not a communist state and doesn't have a top down planning, its a coordination centre for 27 free market countries and its up to the EU capitalist and engineers to come up with technology and investment. They actually do, that's why EU is huge exporter of stuff. Believe it or not, there's more in this world than coding, there are all kinds of engineers that deal with atoms and electricity. However the "tech" doesn't flourish in Europe because doesn't make economic sense. US has full access to EU markets, they already have the know how and capital concentration, so why bother to re-invent the wheel in EU? Just go do it in US or do work for the US companies cementing their position even further. US can afford not to have much regulations over the "tech" because they have the HQs and all the important people in SV. The moment some company that's not from US becomes big they take it down. TikTok for example, they forced a sale to fking Oracle, US doesn't allow foreign communications on its land. Its a semi-open knowledge that US government is working with those "tech" companies to control its own population and interests. I don't know, if the US way of doing this is the better one, maybe EU should just force all the US "tech" companies to sell to EU owners just like with TikTok. Then get rid of all these regulations and just summon the local people when things go bad, like the "wrong" ideas spread like the way it happened on TikTik with Israel-Palestine conflict. The US way is like, oh you are not cooperating and not pushing the right agenda? Oh that's fine but too bad the new employment rules will hurt you and you can forget about this datacenter permit thing.

Xelbair 1y ago
I'm not saying they have top-down control. I'm saying they are trying top-down initiatives - the difference is subtle but important. This is about attitude and how attempts are made - not how successful they are at it. This isn't central planning - this is just plan ineptitude that's sabotaged by inter-country conflicts of interests, with extremely bloated beaurocracy - sometimes just to have enough representation from each party. EU is stuck between worst of both worlds, and i don't see anything changing for better in here without a shift - either towards more looser union akin to trade union(original idea) or a federation.
- mrtksn 1y ago
  They aren't try, they don't have tools to even try doing these things. But I agree, it needs to shift to a new format. Ideally federation because as we see with Greenland and Switzerland being a small independent country comes with significant risks in this new world order.
  - Xelbair 1y ago
    Personally i would prefer trade union, as EU countries have shown themselves already incapable of offering support in case of any real threat due to conflicting interests, and federation would most likely end up being run by Germany/France duopoly. also look at energy and AI initiatives for examples of top down initiatives. In most non-western EU countries the only realistic way to get a tech startup going is via EU grant process which is extremely top down with keywords they want for specific year, and basically prevents any form of pivoting as a business. It's not some top brass of party, soviet style, making top-down decisions. Its the whole system that's designed to operate that way - bureaucrats here and there incentivized to do so, committee here and there setting up guidelines for results. what they should do is to setup a framework in which results emerge.
    - mrtksn 1y ago
      Whatever it becomes, IMHO it needs to have much more clear set of responsibilities and adequate tools to fulfill those duties. Currently everything is too patchy, the currency the passport the agencies like ESA, the trade barriers within itself - everything needs a re-do in the integration or scaling down the scope.

thefz 1y ago

> EU does not foster any form of framework for growing any industry You are right. Pharma, automotive, financial in EU all come from the US. Companies like Nokia, Siemens, Bosch, BMW... all american names.

alephnerd 1y ago
All those industries were fostered by individual countries with little-to-no transnational support from the EU. On top of that, traditional European industries like Automotive have not kept up with challengers, the financial industry across Europe itself is morose in comparison to similar markets in the US or China, and European Pharma itself is overwhelmingly clustered in Switzerland which is not an EU member. Nokia itself was at the brink of collapse in the early 2010s, and Siemens and Bosch have faced increasing stress at the bottom market from Chinese players and at the upper market by American players, plus states like the US and India required significant firewalls between those companies operations in their countries and Europe. Long story short, while individual European states may have been able to build innovative companies, that muscle has largely atrophied over the past 20 years.
- mrtksn 1y ago
  Why would politicians do any of that? Did United States House of Representatives invent anything? All these EU companies are all private enterprises and they are %100 from a country in EU because there's no such thing as EU as a country, EU doesn't have companies(beyond entities created to fulfill certain functions). This too may change soon because they are looking into introducing a 28th regime which would be like virtual EU member. I think there's huge confusion on what is EU. BTW, EU has roots in "European Coal and Steel Community" and role in forming the Airbus but even in these ase it was just a facilitator. All these expectation that are based on imaginary things(don't take it personally please, I see these things all the time) shows that EU desperately needs to become a country by its own right. Its so confusing to understand what EU can and can't do, what organization is under EU control and how much.
  - alephnerd 1y ago