3 ms·

But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture, although it sort of reads like they had a US parent company to attend y combinator and raise money, but a

But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture, although it sort of reads like they had a US parent company to attend y combinator and raise money, but are now moving fully to Berlin, which is what they intended from the start.

1718627440 16d ago
Isn't regulatory capture when a company shapes regulation to achieve business interests? How is this the case here?
- nickff 16d ago
  Excluding foreign competitors is a classic ‘regulatory capture’-style approach. Regulatory capture is (typically) a ‘bootleggers and baptists’ scenario where there are both good and bad reasons to enact the rules.
greggoB 16d ago
> But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture This doesn't match my understanding of regulatory capture [0] - is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU's data protection laws in order to benefit from by blocking out competitors? Would be unexpected, since laws like GDPR predate its founding. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- guywithahat 15d ago
  > is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU's data protection laws Companies don't write laws. All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and/or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and/or other competition. The point is that type of economic productivity is useless and derived from corruption in a free market. For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that. And for what its worth your wiki link seems to agree with me, I'm not sure why you posted it.
  - greggoB 15d ago
    I never claimed companies write laws, but they do lobby governments to write laws which are beneficial for them. This is well-documented, including in the US, fwiw. > All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and/or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and/or other competition This doesn't match what the wiki links says (first sentence): > In politics, regulatory capture (also called agency capture) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency[...] Operative word is "co-opted", which sort of fits with what would be required for something to be considered corruption. So no, the company can't just benefit, they also have to have pushed for the specific outcome. > For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that. I find this quite hard to believe. Digital sovereignty in the EU only really started in 2025, prior regulation like GDPR has applied to tech companies from all companies, including the EU. The continent has effectively allowed Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc, to dominate the tech scene here since their inception. Perhaps you're thinking of China.
fakedang 15d ago
The difference between data sovereignty and regulatory capture is that the populace generally wants data sovereignty. The populace does not want big corporations dictating the rules of the trade.
booi 14d ago
i'm not sure why you're being downvoted. They know more AI regulation is coming, they know what it's going to be, they're influencing it and setting themselves up to benefit. It literally is the definition of regulatory capture.

1718627440 16d ago

Isn't regulatory capture when a company shapes regulation to achieve business interests? How is this the case here?

nickff 16d ago
Excluding foreign competitors is a classic ‘regulatory capture’-style approach. Regulatory capture is (typically) a ‘bootleggers and baptists’ scenario where there are both good and bad reasons to enact the rules.

greggoB 16d ago

> But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture This doesn't match my understanding of regulatory capture [0] - is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU's data protection laws in order to benefit from by blocking out competitors? Would be unexpected, since laws like GDPR predate its founding. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

guywithahat 15d ago
> is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU's data protection laws Companies don't write laws. All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and/or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and/or other competition. The point is that type of economic productivity is useless and derived from corruption in a free market. For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that. And for what its worth your wiki link seems to agree with me, I'm not sure why you posted it.
- greggoB 15d ago
  I never claimed companies write laws, but they do lobby governments to write laws which are beneficial for them. This is well-documented, including in the US, fwiw. > All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and/or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and/or other competition This doesn't match what the wiki links says (first sentence): > In politics, regulatory capture (also called agency capture) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency[...] Operative word is "co-opted", which sort of fits with what would be required for something to be considered corruption. So no, the company can't just benefit, they also have to have pushed for the specific outcome. > For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that. I find this quite hard to believe. Digital sovereignty in the EU only really started in 2025, prior regulation like GDPR has applied to tech companies from all companies, including the EU. The continent has effectively allowed Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc, to dominate the tech scene here since their inception. Perhaps you're thinking of China.

fakedang 15d ago

The difference between data sovereignty and regulatory capture is that the populace generally wants data sovereignty. The populace does not want big corporations dictating the rules of the trade.

booi 14d ago

i'm not sure why you're being downvoted. They know more AI regulation is coming, they know what it's going to be, they're influencing it and setting themselves up to benefit. It literally is the definition of regulatory capture.