The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#2I don't understand such articles, maybe someone can clarify the issue for me? If a company can do Harmful Things X and Y, and then a law appears that bans it from doing X but for some reason does not cover Y, then how is the rule hurting the victims of that company? How can reducing but not completely eliminating harmful things actually be actively hurting?
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#3I don't understand such articles, maybe someone can clarify the issue for me? If a company can do Harmful Things X and Y, and then a law appears that bans it from doing X but for some reason does not cover Y, then how is the rule hurting the victims of that company? How can reducing but not completely eliminating harmful things actually be actively hurting?
The European Parliament has partially eroded net neutrality with its decision on the 27th October due to loopholes.
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#4I don't understand such articles, maybe someone can clarify the issue for me? If a company can do Harmful Things X and Y, and then a law appears that bans it from doing X but for some reason does not cover Y, then how is the rule hurting the victims of that company? How can reducing but not completely eliminating harmful things actually be actively hurting?
Its all about loopholes actually. Lets take for example a simple law that says all employers must give their employees health insurance. No sane person is against people having health insurance, its just the ways companies might get around this law that is the problem. For instance, lets say this applies to fulltime employees, well then the company might lay people off, hire more contractors and part-timers, then those same people have less job security, perhaps lower wages because other laws regarding fulltime employees dont apply, and still no health insurance.
That is essentially what this EU law boils down to: a law with lots of loophole room for companies to exploit.
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#5I don't understand such articles, maybe someone can clarify the issue for me? If a company can do Harmful Things X and Y, and then a law appears that bans it from doing X but for some reason does not cover Y, then how is the rule hurting the victims of that company? How can reducing but not completely eliminating harmful things actually be actively hurting?
Its all about loopholes actually. Lets take for example a simple law that says all employers must give their employees health insurance. No sane person is against people having health insurance, its just the ways companies might get around this law that is the problem. For instance, lets say this applies to fulltime employees, well then the company might lay people off, hire more contractors and part-timers, then tho…
>Lets take for example a simple law that says all employers must give their employees health insurance. No sane person is against people having health insurance
Given that in many countries apart from the US, health insurance is provided by the government and/or private sector, I'd posit that there are quite a few sane people who don't believe having employers be responsible for providing health insurance is necessarily a good idea.
An example found by some quick Googling: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/05/12/how-emp...
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#6I don't understand such articles, maybe someone can clarify the issue for me? If a company can do Harmful Things X and Y, and then a law appears that bans it from doing X but for some reason does not cover Y, then how is the rule hurting the victims of that company? How can reducing but not completely eliminating harmful things actually be actively hurting?
The European Parliament has partially eroded net neutrality with its decision on the 27th October due to loopholes.
No. The Parliament had written a version without loopholes.
The Council then modified it, and said "If you don’t add these loopholes, we’ll veto it and all future variants of it".
As the council is representatives of the governments of the nations, complain to your government, not to the EU.
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#7I don't understand such articles, maybe someone can clarify the issue for me? If a company can do Harmful Things X and Y, and then a law appears that bans it from doing X but for some reason does not cover Y, then how is the rule hurting the victims of that company? How can reducing but not completely eliminating harmful things actually be actively hurting?
You wanted Net Neutrality.
They gave you "Net Neutrality".
You're now satisfied.
I wish more people would up-vote this, the article isn't getting the attention it should :-/ or I'm just overly worried.
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its all about loopholes actually. Lets take for example a simple law that says all employers must give their employees health insurance. No sane person is against people having health insurance, its just the ways companies might get around this law that is the problem. For instance, lets say this applies to fulltime employees, well then the company might lay people off, hire more contractors and part-timers, then tho…
>Lets take for example a simple law that says all employers must give their employees health insurance. No sane person is against people having health insurance Given that in many countries apart from the US, health insurance is provided by the government and/or private sector, I'd posit that there are quite a few sane people who don't believe having employers be responsible for providing health insurance is necessar…
I do not live in the US, I chose a specificlly US example because most people are probably familiar with the US system here. Regardless, if you read my statement, it has nothing to do with whether a company/govt should or should not provide insurance, just that "no sane person is against people having health insurance". If someone thinks, in general, people should not have health care services I think there is something wrong with them i.e. they are not being sane.
A better example could have perhaps been rent ceilings in large cities, since there are many classic examples of this loophole behavior in economics.
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#9That's why any startup that wants business will make an Inc in the US.
It's legally much simpler to do so, and leave your offices in the cheap EU. US Inc can employ your offices and at the same time have no people working in the US.
US is saved by ruthless capitalism. When I see what politicians from my country voted on I'm realizing that journalists, political science majors, historians, spanish/english/lang language teachers, philosophers, artists and bunch of other social scientists know much about nothing - maybe it says something about our national universities, maybe about these science areas as a whole, who knows. But for some reason they think they are capable of having a career in politics, and it works.
Re: The EU’s new internet rules will hurt the continent’s startups
#10I don't understand such articles, maybe someone can clarify the issue for me? If a company can do Harmful Things X and Y, and then a law appears that bans it from doing X but for some reason does not cover Y, then how is the rule hurting the victims of that company? How can reducing but not completely eliminating harmful things actually be actively hurting?
Its all about loopholes actually. Lets take for example a simple law that says all employers must give their employees health insurance. No sane person is against people having health insurance, its just the ways companies might get around this law that is the problem. For instance, lets say this applies to fulltime employees, well then the company might lay people off, hire more contractors and part-timers, then tho…
In less words; side-effects of modified incentives.
If adding or removing one incentive or disincentive makes some completely different option more profitable than the intended one, that's a loophole that's likely to be abused.