US Warns EU Against Anti-American Tech Policy (arstechnica.com) 209
The US has warned the EU against pursuing "protectionist" technology policies that exclusively target American companies, ahead of Joe Biden's first presidential visit to Brussels. From a report: The National Security Council, an arm of the White House, wrote last week to complain about the tone of recent comments about the EU's flagship tech regulation, as debates are about to begin in the European parliament. "We are particularly concerned about recent comments by the European Parliament rapporteur for the Digital Markets Act, Andreas Schwab, who suggested the DMA should unquestionably target only the five biggest US firms," said the email, seen by the Financial Times and dated June 9. It added: "Comments and approaches such as this make regulatory co-operation between the US and Europe extremely difficult and send a message that the [European] Commission is not interested in engaging with the United States in good faith to address these common challenges in a way that serves our shared interests. Protectionist measures could disadvantage European citizens and hold back innovation in member-state economies. Such policies will also hinder our ability to work together to harmonize our regulatory systems," it said. The note was sent by the NSC to staff at the EU's delegation in the US capital, according to several people familiar with it, as part of routine communications between Washington and Brussels. It comes at a time when both the US and EU are keen to rebuild a relationship that was marred by acrimony during Donald Trump's presidency. On Tuesday Biden will attend an EU-US summit in Brussels to discuss trade, tech, and China.
What, like the USA hasn't been doing that... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're gonna give it out, you gotta be prepared to take it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not really.
Trump was big on throwing tantrums and tweeting flamebait. But except for his tariffs on steel and aluminium in reaction to what his administration asserted was state-subsidized dumping on the US markets, actual US policy towards Europe hardly budged.
It's going to take a while to un-wedge all the trade agreement issues: mutual accusations of state subsidies in aerospace, undoing the steel/aluminium and counter orange juice/clothing/Harley Davidson tariffs.
But this attacking US based internet firm
Re: (Score:2)
However, the "US based internet firms" clearly have problems with following the EU laws regarding user privacy. Some EU based firms have also run into problems, but somehow it doesn't make as many headlines.
Re: What, like the USA hasn't been doing that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck China.
The EU and other areas are our friends and allies....we work with them.
We are all at economical war with China, they do not play fair and are not a country to be trusted.
Of course we need to use tools in trade to be tough on China.
That is a given.
Re: (Score:3)
That's completely different - TikTok is a national security threat!
So is facebook. What is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy in the USA is not that great, and I doubt it would take much to make it worse.
Covid has also shown that reliance on the USA for supply chains is not wise either. We look at the bullying towards semi-conductor foundries because US car manufacturers walked from their contracts expecting a downturn, others took their slot and now the US expects to walk right back in to where they were.
For the rest of the world, China and the USA are
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but was Canada ever a national security threat to the USA? Remember the aluminum tariffs that were imposed against Canada for no reason but to exert pressure on Canada to sign a revised trade agreement with the US (this was even admitted by Trump in at least one interview) under the pretense of a threat to national security so that it could be legal? Oh, and then to top it all; off, the tariffs were rre-imposed even after the free trade agreement came into effect (although they were lifted about a
Re: What, like the USA hasn't been doing that... (Score:2)
Uhm, the US imports twice as many cars. EU has 10% (Score:5, Insightful)
> No, the US has been doing it for decades. You need look no further than the car industry to see protectionist laws
The US imports TWICE as many cars as the EU.
And which country buys the most EU cars, China? Nope, the US.
The EU puts a 10% tariff on American cars.
The US has a 2.5% import tariff. Meaning the EU is FOUR TIMES as protectionist.
Facts are a bitch, aren't they, when you want to Ra Ra Ra for some "team".
Re:Uhm, the US imports twice as many cars. EU has (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you want to bash on something, then cite the parts you have issues with. Simply posting a link to a Wikipedia article without bein
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that he's 100% correct
Thanks for that
Re:Uhm, the US imports twice as many cars. EU has (Score:4, Informative)
> No, the US has been doing it for decades. You need look no further than the car industry to see protectionist laws
The US imports TWICE as many cars as the EU. And which country buys the most EU cars, China? Nope, the US.
The EU puts a 10% tariff on American cars. The US has a 2.5% import tariff. Meaning the EU is FOUR TIMES as protectionist.
Facts are a bitch, aren't they, when you want to Ra Ra Ra for some "team".
For one thing EU car companies also build shit-tons of European cars in the US employing US citizens. As for EU imports of US cars, firstly, the two US car brands that still makes any numbers of family cars suitable for the EU market is Ford which has factories in the EU and employs lots of Europeans and has done since the 1920s at least and Tesla which is now building factories in the EU. The remainder of the US core car brands have become SUV and Pickup truck specialist who make SUVs and Pickups the size of dump trucks. If you want to know why those don't sell in the EU except for a few specialist off-road niche uses, bring your huge three axle six metric ton pickup truck over here and try driving it through the streets of some of the medieval villages, towns and cities we have over here. It does not help that some of these big American SUVs and Pickups are so heavy they require the owner to get a lorry driver's license. The imbalance in car imports is largely explicable by the fact that the market for what the US makes in terms of cars is really small in the EU (except for Ford and Tesla's offerings) while the family cars the EU makes simply have a bigger market in the US than the huge American SUVs and Pickups have in the EU. If US car makers started making more family oriented cars this imbalance would even out but the only ones doing that at the moment are Ford and Telsa. What you are basically complaining about boils down to you finding it unfair that Europeans don't like SUVs and Pickups.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that GM probably hadn't any interest in selling their cars in Europe for the last 60 years as that would have damaged their existing European Opel/Vauxhall brand. Which didn't export much to the US either, for likely the same reasons.
And as you wouldn't want to drive a Pickup through a european town, I wouldn't want to drive a Corsa in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that GM probably hadn't any interest in selling their cars in Europe for the last 60 years as that would have damaged their existing European Opel/Vauxhall brand. Which didn't export much to the US either, for likely the same reasons.
And as you wouldn't want to drive a Pickup through a european town, I wouldn't want to drive a Corsa in the US.
You generalise. There are plenty of large cities like LA, San Francisco, New York, Huston, Chicago, .... the list goes on where the use case for a car is committing to work, and then commuting home with stopovers at school/kindergarten and the supermarket. If Americans have a pressing need for a Ford 150 pickup to do that kind of driving in an urban area I'd like to know why because elsewhere in the world people do that pretty happily with an Opel Corsa or similarly sized car. If, on the other hand you live
Re: (Score:2)
Well... I didn't give a reason why I don't want to have a Corsa in the US, but it was mainly cause I'd be afraid of being run over by a SUV like in Monster Truck show....
And I don't think the cup holders are large enough :-P
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that Opel and Vauxhall are GM brands right? Automakers will market different brands in different regions for different reasons. One of the major reasons is brand identity and how familiar consumers are with it. Europeans aren't that familiar with Chevy or GMC but they are familiar with Vauxhall and Opel. A lot of products are shared between brands across the globe but some aren't. I don't think you will see large body on frame SUVs in Europe but the compact car platforms tend to be global and
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of that. In fact it was my point that they are selling them differently in different markets. But I doubt that Opel sold in Europe count as US cars sold in Europe when it comes to tariff negotiations.
Re:Uhm, the US imports twice as many cars. EU has (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, you agree that the original claim about protectionist laws ("No, the US has been doing it for decades. You need look no further than the car industry to see protectionist laws") was wrong, the rebuttal about relative import tariffs is right, and you really really want to change the topic of discussion to consumer preferences?
Re: (Score:2)
In short, you agree that the original claim about protectionist laws ("No, the US has been doing it for decades. You need look no further than the car industry to see protectionist laws") was wrong, the rebuttal about relative import tariffs is right, and you really really want to change the topic of discussion to consumer preferences?
No, I'm saying that your narrative of US victimhood in the international car trade is a load of crock. I'm saying that the disparity in the export of EU cars to the US vs US cars to the EU can mostly be explained by the fact that most of the core US car makers simply don't make car that sell in the EU. EU car makers make cars that sell pretty well in heavily urban areas of the US. The disparity you attribute to US victimhood in international trade is easily explained through simple market dynamics.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA, with some 265 million or so cars, has more cars than any other except for China, and it's only trailing behind China by about 20 million cars or so. The next highest number of cars found in any single country is not even a third of the number that are in the USA.
Politics aside, the raw numbers make it entirely surprising that the USA would be a leading car importer.
Re: (Score:2)
What are they? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever policies that are pissing off these companies a probably really good and I want to see what my fellow Americans and I are missing out on.
Re:What are they? (Score:5, Informative)
The Wikipedia page actually contains a great summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a legislative proposal of the European Commission that intends to ensure a higher degree of competition in the European Digital Markets, by preventing large companies from abusing their market power and by allowing new players to enter the market. It establishes a list of obligations for designated Gatekeepers and in case of non-compliance, there will be enforced sanctions mechanisms, including fines of up to 10% of the worldwide turnover.
Re:What are they? (Score:5, Insightful)
This idea that a single government (or region) can fine someone based on global revenues is a monstrous perversion of sovereignty.
Then I guess that you find the idea of the US taxing US citizens and corporations based on their worldwide income just as much of a monstrous perversion of sovereignty. The only way for an American living outside of the US to stop having their income taxed by the US government is to give up their citizenship (as long as they have citizenship of another country beforehand).
Re: (Score:2)
That is a problem, bit not nearly as much. The US gives a credit for any foreign taxes paid, so that rule functions as a minimum tax rather than an additional one.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Ivan.
Re: (Score:3)
The US should retaliate by fining European companies 10% of the world's GDP.
This idea that a single government (or region) can fine someone based on global revenues is a monstrous perversion of sovereignty.
It is not, in an era where business is decoupled from the physical presence of services and goods being sold for profit. Yes, US were leader while innovating Internet business. Yet this was also setting new market prepopulated with the limited number of extraordinary influent tycoons, related in origin. There are simply not many of non-US originated global (read: of utmost influence) businesses on that market, with the closest being only the second tier of local-targeted national operations. DMA states as a
Re: (Score:2)
As an European, I can't complain about my exposure to the products from (ummm, rather designed in) Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And we literally drown in the ocean of goods from China, feeling lucky, when made-in-EU pops out. But you are not even speaking on the very subject of Digital Market, isn't it.
Re:What are they? (Score:4, Interesting)
monstrous perversion of sovereignty.
No it isn't. A country or bloc can impose whatever rules it wants: that IS sovereignty. The EU isn't going to reach outside the EU and force companies which have no presence in the EU to do anything at all.
But if you want those sweet, sweet eurodollars you need to play by their rules.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly why the US should force European companies (doing business in the US) to pay fines based on the global economy, just like I said. If you want those sweet US dollars, you have to play by our rules. That's sovereignty, babe!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand my (satirical) suggestion -- we should not stop at an arbitrary number like the company's worldwide revenue. We should make it clear that they are damaging the entire world's economy, and so the fine should be proportional to the entire world's economy.
10% of the $90 trillion global GDP seems fair for causing that kind of damage, right? We could probably even be generous and cut the fine to as low as 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly why the US should force European companies (doing business in the US) to pay fines based on the global economy, just like I said. If you want those sweet US dollars, you have to play by our rules.
If there are globally dominant European companies operating in the US, and the US actually wants to achieve some outcome, then sure, I don't see why it wouldn't use the same entirely reasonable tactic.
Your suggestion that the US do it for no reason other than to satisfy your sense of vengeance howe
Re: (Score:2)
This idea that a single government (or region) can fine someone based on global revenues is a monstrous perversion of sovereignty.
You mean that multinationals should never be considered as such? We should only address the fingers without ever looking at the whole hand?
What is perverted is you bending over and spreading your cheeks for these multinationals.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to set a limit, it's a fine, you broke the law. You should be lucky there's a limit at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So what would you propose as an alternative? If The EU can't punish companies for wrong-doing then what's to stop companies from doing wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I would suggest the EU fine companies based on EU revenue rather than global revenues. Or they could calculate supposed damages and the company could debate the actual damages in a court. The kind of calculation described by the DMA is abusive and protectionist, and will predictably damage international markets far more than it will help.
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not even have such a limit that the EU is proposing.
The US can fine up to $100M regardless of what the company have in revenue, and "Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million." so in the US a company can be fined with an amount that is even greater than their 100% world wide revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
That proposal [barrons.com] is about taxing companies where they have operations, rather than letting them assign profits to related companies in tax havens as a tax avoidance scheme. It's not about taxing economic activities in other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about taxing economic activities in other countries.
Neither are the fines given by the EU...
You may ask yourself why the fines are related to global income. This is because the global income is the power a multinational has and uses on the EU market.
For instance, the global income can be used to regionally out-compete EU companies.
Take Amazon. They have the resources to undercut their prices for a longer time than practically any competitor on the EU market. And they are doing exactly that at this very moment. They can sell for unrealistically low prices a
Re: (Score:2)
You're right -- the proposed fines are about fining economic activities in other countries, which is even more ridiculous.
If you are that concerned about abuse of market position, fine companies up to 100% of their EU revenues. It remains preposterous to base fines on global revenue. "You shipped a single packet of crisps to the EU below market rates -- that will be 10% of your global take, thank you very much."
Before you suggest that fines must be assessed in a reasonable manner, that grants entirely too
Re: (Score:2)
'100% of their EU revenues' ... That's not going to work. There are plenty companies out there that happily bleed millions in a certain market just to destroy their competition first. (Uber comes to mind). If you 'fine' them based on their revenue, you almost have to pay them money in the process. Same for companies that don't generate revenue off of their 'cattle' but instead from other multinationals (advertisement business). Their real clients can just pay in one market completely out of sight from anoth
Re: (Score:2)
You have confused revenue with income or profit: https://www.investopedia.com/a... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you are that concerned about abuse of market position, fine companies up to 100% of their EU revenues.
LOL, why?
These companies involve100% of their global power to fight against the EU and her citizens. Why the fuck should we limit the scope to just the EU when punishing these companies for actively using these global resources to become monopolists in our region?
It seems you've developed the mistaken belief that the EU governments are there to serve the multinationals we talk about. You will understand someday.
Before you suggest that fines must be assessed in a reasonable manner, that grants entirely too much discretion to bureaucrats who are foreign to the companies they are regulating.
LOL
Are you suggesting that multinationals know best how to regulate themselves and we should ther
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those companies also have the resources to shuffle things around enough to make it impossible for a single regulator to determine what their "worldwide turnover" is.
Then the EU will have to guess, don't they?
Given that each side would have effectively unlimited legal resources, any regulatory body attempting to levy a fine would find itself mired in the courts for years.
That shit may fly in the US, but here it's not that easy to frivolously drag out court cases.
Also, your suggestion that a case (any case) would be settled because one of the parties ran out of money is deeply perverse from a justice standpoint and a signal for the problems that underlay the locust swarm behavior of the companies we are discussing. The fact that these companies win court cases by draining opponents of funds is the deeply sad truth of how these compa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If EU punishes them simply for being large, then the US may retaliate and do the same for areas where EU has a large share, such as wine and fashion.
The EU punishes them for being monopolies who abuse their dominant market position to hurt competitors as well as for tax evasion. Y'know all of those things corporations should not do unless they are US corporations doing those things outside the US in which case it's ok because ... manifest destiny.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
It's a war between protectionists that has been going on for a long time. So long that it's difficult to say who's got the moral superiority here. Though it's likely that it comes down to England having started it some centuries ago when they decided that they should screw 'West Britain', which ultimately lead to the American Revolution.
Of course blaming the Brits that live today would be stupid. In these times everyone who perpetuates t
most probably GDPR/Privacy policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are the policies that say anti-consumerism is OK, antitrust is OK, invading your privacy is OK, but if your company name is Google or Amazon you are breaking the law.
The big US tech companies practically have a monopoly on anti-consumerism, antitrust and particularly invading the privacy of the people in Europe. So it's not strange that these are the entities that are perceived as the biggest problem.
The point is that most smaller European companies abide by the law and where they don't they can be prosecuted. The US tech monopolists, on the other hand, form a block and constantly headbump with law, with the obvious intention of changing it to their advantage and to the
Dear world (Score:4, Insightful)
From 2016 to 2020 we were perfectly cool with you being bitterly anti-American but now we'd like you to lay off.
-The US media and Left.
Re:Dear world (Score:5, Funny)
The bitterness was sheer astonishment and disbelief. Now things are back to normal we rest-of-the-worlders have resumed our usual simmering resentment.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't blame you - geopolitics, even amongst allies, are red in tooth and claw.
What I was more commenting on was the Left's rather...'situational'... patriotism.
2000-2007: super cool with everyone hating America
2008-2015: America is awesome, isn't it?
2016-2019: super cool with everyone hating America because we do too
2020+ America is awesome again.
See any pattern there?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably due to those periods of time were when America was acting as a maximum asshole.
Example, 9/11 America freaked out and closed its airspace while lots of planes full of Americans were in the air. We, Canada, said fine, land here. Then we took those 1000's of Americans into our homes, fed and sheltered them, see Gander for a big example of what happened all over our country. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Meanwhile we also sent lots of help to NY.
Bush couldn't even be bothered to say thank you. At th
Re:Dear world (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because he's wrong about the media and the left.
Trumpanzees like to believe that Trump is America so anti-Trump means anti America. This is not, in fact true.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "trumpanzees" do?* I wouldn't know - personally I despised Trump, glad he's not president any longer.
No, I think the media and the left were generally anti-American far, far before Trump ever faintly considered being a Republican...does that make it better?
*so it's cool to call people you disagree with politically monkeys. OK that I post the Obama-as-a-monkey memes, too then? Or are you just a garden-variety hypocrite?
It's simply tax avoidance (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple, Google, Amazon etc. make billions of euros in EU territories, but pay no local tax on their profits. Apart from nominal in Ireland.
Why?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why?
Because trying to collect extraterritorial tax on the profits of foreign corporations doesn't really make sense.
They should be taxed on revenue (VAT), resource consumption (excise tax), or payroll. If you want to hit profits, then tax dividends or capital gains.
The EU already imposes many of these more sensible alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because trying to collect extraterritorial tax on the profits of foreign corporations doesn't really make sense.
They should be taxed on revenue (VAT), resource consumption (excise tax), or payroll. If you want to hit profits, then tax dividends or capital gains.
The EU already imposes many of these more sensible alternatives.
You mean, create a special super high VAT category for the likes Amazon/Google/Facebook etc. who ship products into your territory from outside of your jurisdiction and justify it by citing their pervasive and successful evasion of other local taxes? That would hit them in the one place where they can't easily evade taxes, at the point of product/service delivery to the local customer. If they want to avoid the VAT it forces them to create a local operation which in turn means they are now cheating on their
Re: (Score:2)
Because trying to collect extraterritorial tax on the profits of foreign corporations doesn't really make sense.
Of course it makes sense. When your local profits are moved extraterritorially thanks to tax evasion then simply apply an extraterritorial tax.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to hit profits, then tax dividends or capital gains.
Thats a good way to ensure that all profit goes into faux "research" initiatives that involves owning mansions across the global, and would tank the stock markets instantly, and thats yours and my retirement fund, buddy... stop fucking with it we had a fucking deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should be taxed on revenue (VAT)
I'm sorry to inform you but VAT is not a tax on revenue. It is a consumer tax that is merely mediated through sellers. Besides requiring a more special administration VAT doesn't touch neither revenue nor profit.
Re: (Score:2)
All income should be taxes AT THE POINT OF REVENUE and not at the point of production.
Do you understand the difference between revenue and income (profit)?
Do you understand that there is no plausible way to know the profit on the sale of any particular item?
If a product is sold as a loss leader with a negative profit, does the seller get an on-the-spot tax refund?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They avoid taxes in these nations because it's cheaper to pay taxes in Ireland. Lower your taxes to the level of Ireland and then people will stay and pay your taxes rather than leave and pay Ireland's taxes.
Some people cannot seem to comprehend that raising taxes does not raise revenue. Lowering taxes can raise more revenue. What we get in the USA are Democrats that will admit that it is more important to them to punish the wealthy than increase government revenue. Then when the Democrats see wealthy p
Re: (Score:2)
Lower your taxes to the level of Ireland, and meanwhile companies have moved to the British Virgin Islands which have an even lower tax rate. And in the meanwhile, you dismantled your country's welfare state and people will no longer vote for you, but rather elect someone who takes your country out of the EU in order to make it great again.
It's not that I don't agree with you t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This nonsense is the old tired argument of the Laffer curve [wikipedia.org]. It flies in the face of common sense and of factual experience. Every time taxes are slashed for the rich in the US [wikipedia.org] the government ends up cutting social spending, effectively moving money from the poor to the rich [cbsnews.com], which was likely the idea all along.
In principle, there is a tax rate where further increase will cause less income;
Re: (Score:2)
Because large companies lobbied to have laws written up so that the companies are allowed to move money to different jurisdictions as expenses, the lawmakers wrote the laws, and had them enacted. It's not just in the EU that this happens. It occurs everywhere in the world where the corporate taxes are high (well, higher than 0%) and money is funnelled in tax havens, including South Dakota in the US (which the US conveniently never mentions).
The corporations aren't doing anything illegal. If the lawmakers ar
Re: (Score:2)
Because large companies lobbied to have laws written up so that the companies are allowed to move money to different jurisdictions as expenses,
Most companies have a huge amount of expenses, which they pay to other companies at home and abroad.
The corporations aren't doing anything illegal.
The only reason the world works is because 99.999% of the time people aren't skirting the very edge of illegality.
If the lawmakers are so upset about this then all they have to do is enact laws that stop the false transfer
Re: (Score:3)
Why?
Because that is the system of free trade that the EU setup. Companies in one country in the EU can sell to any other country in the EU tariff free. So when foreign companies move to the EU they shop around for the country that will give them the best deal. Just like how when EU companies setup shop in the US they shop around between the different states looking for the best deal.
If EU did not want foreign companies shopping around for the lowest tax rate than they should have made that part of the deal, bu
marred by acrimony during Trump's presidency (Score:2)
Come on now. Across the pond, we've rather silently endured Boris, Thierry, Emmanuel, and Sebastian... and it's not as if we're holding our own politicians to a higher standard than Brazil.
Let's face it. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
A simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
I propose a simple solution - rather than targeting the largest US digital market companies, they should target the largest *global* digital market companies.
It's probably the exact same companies, but the policy would then be fair and even-handed against those most abusing their position the most, rather than only if they're abusing their position while having their head offices in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I propose a simple solution - rather than targeting the largest US digital market companies, they should target the largest *global* digital market companies.
happily that's exactly what the drafts say: gatekeepers, whatever gatekeepers. the top 5 surely happen to be from the us, but the rhetoric in the article is quite misleading and is probably just playing on the poor wording of the current rapporteur in an interview to incite a tiny little bit of patriotic outrage. it collects clicks and supports the narrative.
i can't even imagine the eu parliament passing laws that target companies of some specific country only. we have indeed a lot of high order morons in charge but we have not descended to trumpist levels of embarrassment yet.
Re:A simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
That's actually what the law says, the USA is just grandstanding because they found someone in Brussels who admitted that it would affect predominantly American countries.
Ironically it's the USA here being protectionist.
screw that (Score:2)
EU countries are sovereign, they can do whatever the fsck they want
Challenge accepted (Score:2)
Fuck US tech.
Big tech need regulation (Score:3)
I haven't made up my mind about the Digital Services Act (DSA). But I have time and again argued that the current behavior of big tech with regards to the political discourse will result in heavy regulation in countries outside the US. Here are some of the changes that will happen in the EU due to the DSA:
What the new Digital Services Act changes:
Transparency of the rules for content moderation
Meaningful information about advertising and targeted ads: who sponsored the ad, how and why it targets a user
Clear information on why content is recommended to users
Users' right to opt-out from content recommendations based on profiling
Platforms' participation in codes of practice as a measure to mitigate their risks
Better access to data for authorities and researchers to better understand virality online and its impact with a view to lower societal risks
Hypocrites (Score:3)
haha, So it's OK for the US to block EU tech companies, but they think it's not OK for EU to block US tech companies.. It's a bit with nukes, US pointing fingers at others they cannot create/develop (new) nukes, but in the meantime they are expanding and upgrading their own nukes... You can't take someone like that serious, in normal societies we call them bullies.
Re: (Score:2)
the EU has Nukes ..
Re: (Score:3)
No, France has nukes. None of the EU institutions has any say in what France does with them.
pot calling the kettle black (Score:2)
Who else? (Score:2)
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Funny)
But compared to Republicans, they are fucking geniuses.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But compared to Republicans, they are fucking geniuses.
With the US political parties being tied near 49/49 in every election and the deciding votes being cast by a bunch of undecided hybrid voters conceived in a motel room after a drunken party whenever the Reps and Dems hold party conventions within driving distance of each other I'm pretty sure both Reps and Dems are pretty equally skilled at fucking. Then there's the DamnOregonian and SuperKendall but they are probably the result of an alien genestealer breeding program.
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Informative)
Geniuses that can’t get any legislation passed even when they have a majority. Democrats are a real stable genius.
The Republicans couldn't get any legislation passed either even when they had a clear majority in both houses and had the presidency as well for two years. Republicans are (not) real stable geniuses. Even Obamacare stood that test because it was obvious to enough Republicans that stripping tens millions of their own electorate of their health coverage by repealing Obamacare was a very, very bad idea. The US citizenry needs to replace their entire political class, not just one half of it.
Actual Democracy (Score:2)
The US citizenry needs to replace their entire political class, not just one half of it.
Your country needs to switch the entire system of government to an actual democracy - i.e.: a direct democracy.
Not the thinly disguised oligarchy that you have right now and, for some weird reasons, call "representative democracy" pretending to not notice the oxymoron.
(said as a smug Swiss)
Re: (Score:2)
The US citizenry needs to replace their entire political class, not just one half of it.
Your country needs to switch the entire system of government to an actual democracy - i.e.: a direct democracy.
Not the thinly disguised oligarchy that you have right now and, for some weird reasons, call "representative democracy" pretending to not notice the oxymoron.
(said as a smug Swiss)
So, a Sortition [wikipedia.org] then?
Re: (Score:2)
A fetus isn't a child, shithead.
Re: Objective standards? That would be nice. (Score:2)
I guess [wordhippo.com] the shit's on your head, moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Fifth definition down the list, which means that definition has fallen out of use, except by religious nuts and dummies. Sort of like when I call you a "fuckwad", I'm actually calling you a fetus...but you know what I really mean. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
A fetus isn't a child, shithead.
First thing, "fetus" is a word derived from Latin which means "child".
Second, it's not relevant. If we are to allow the choice of a medical procedure for a woman to end their pregnancy or not then we should also allow the choice of that same woman on if to get a vaccine or not. Remove the force of government to ban an abortion means removing the force of government requiring a vaccine. Call it removal of tissue if you like it is still a matter of autonomy. Am I free to choose what medical care I get or
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no, both issues are completely unrelated. Abortion prohibition is a matter of religious convictions hence it has no place in a secular country. Compulsory vaccinations are public health issues, epidemic protection to be precise.
Re: (Score:2)
In current medical use, it doesn't mean "child". And ending a pregnancy is a religious choice. Refusing a vaccine is a public health matter. Getting drunk is a personal choice. Driving that way is a public safety choice. See how that works?
And abortions aren't at all dangerous under proper medical care. You're just flat-out wrong. I'm sorry you fell for somebody misinforming you on the subject.
Re: (Score:3)
Nigerian president bans Twitter for blocking his tweets. Twitter says that the right to speak needs to be protected. Doesn't that right extend to the president? Banning Twitter is protecting speech.
Will you let me force you put up signs n your lawn promoting communism? After all if you refuse, I don't have free speech, and you're banning protected speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I offering my front lawn as a platform for all to speak? No, I am not. I do have standards on what signs are posted. You could equate this to a church not allowing people promoting abortion to speak during services. Or a newspaper not allowing people to print misleading advertising, defamatory material, or pornography. Twitter has published terms of service. Those terms do not include the ability to ban whomever they wish when they follow the published terms.
I'm not banning protected speech because
Re: (Score:2)
Am I offering my front lawn as a platform for all to speak?
Neither is twitter. They're offering a platform for you to speak IF you stick within their rules.
They are not offering a platform for anyone to say anything they want.
I do have standards on what signs are posted.
So do Twitter.
Those terms do not include the ability to ban whomever they wish when they follow the published terms.
https://twitter.com/en/tos#upd... [twitter.com]
Half way down under "Ending these terms"