161–170 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are taking the side of a 3 trillion dollor consumer goods company's bottom line, rather than 500 million people's right to choice and privacy. You do realise that, don't you?
The ghouls in Brussels do not represent us all, they do not represent anyone, if we’re talking democracy. It’s a battle over clout and economic resources between whoever is backing these technocrats and some of the biggest corporations in the world, most of us EU citizens have a lot of more important worries on our minds.
As a european citizen, I really wonder what allows you to speak in my name. How arrogant can you get?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The purpose of is the EU single market That's also a misconception. The EU single market is an important project, but there is a constant failure to understand the actual reason why the EU exists or also a purposeful misinterpretation. Countries joining the EU are requested not to join because of the single market, but because they want to join the political project of a more peaceful and an improving Europe. At it…
The EU started as the European Coal and Steel Community which explains most of the beurocracy its saddled with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are taking the side of a 3 trillion dollor consumer goods company's bottom line, rather than 500 million people's right to choice and privacy. You do realise that, don't you?
The ghouls in Brussels do not represent us all, they do not represent anyone, if we’re talking democracy. It’s a battle over clout and economic resources between whoever is backing these technocrats and some of the biggest corporations in the world, most of us EU citizens have a lot of more important worries on our minds.
It's not perfect, but it's the best we've come up with so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple should play their Trump card and threaten to pull out of the EU. The EU would blink first because the public backlash would be career ending.
You are taking the side of a 3 trillion dollor consumer goods company's bottom line, rather than 500 million people's right to choice and privacy. You do realise that, don't you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The purpose of is the EU single market That's also a misconception. The EU single market is an important project, but there is a constant failure to understand the actual reason why the EU exists or also a purposeful misinterpretation. Countries joining the EU are requested not to join because of the single market, but because they want to join the political project of a more peaceful and an improving Europe. At it…
The EU started as the European Coal and Steel Community which explains most of the beurocracy its saddled with.
Germany has the idea of "Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade)[1], which is essentially that you can prevent and make war non-viable and eventually even change countries to follow democratic norms. The EU is the most extreme version of this.
The EU will win this if they want. Their trump card is that, actually, making the EU not a viable market for the most annoying US tech companies would be a huge win for many of their constituents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple should play their Trump card and threaten to pull out of the EU. The EU would blink first because the public backlash would be career ending.
They can't, Apple management have a responsibility to its shareholders and pull out of the EU or even threatening to do so would hurt the stock price. Also imaging the marketing spin you'd have to create: No no, we can't do business in the EU do to it's consumer protection laws. China is fine, they just execute or forcefully re-educate people, much easier people to do business with.
This isn't how "responsibility to its shareholders" works.
While it's true activist shareholders often launch lawsuits over issues they don't like in the US, they are rarely successful and more often looking for a settlement involving a secondary, less significant issue.
US Courts have repeatedly given a large amount of freedom to management to do whatever they want in terms of "delivering shareholder value". They allow management so consider long term goals against next quarter (as they should).
Additionally there's an excellent precedent for this: Google withdrawing from the Chinese market. There are other precedents for threats like this: Both Facebook and Google threatened to withdraw from Australia in various forms during negotiations over payments for news.
(Not arguing this is a good idea, just that it's completely within the realm of what Apple could do).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber should be worried, but also because they are no longer cheaper than the established competition (taxis) that already had the labour laws in place.
For me at least it’s not actually the price of the Uber but that I know what it will be up front. I wasn’t really taking cabs until uber was ubiquitous though so maybe that’s not the same for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> And the side of American prosperity and hegemony. An argument that was often used to justify things like no limit to working hours, no worker's rights, etc