Europe is in danger of regulating its tech market out of existence

Forcing global firms to leave is GOOD actually, but EU have essentially no domestic tech markets: most part of the ruling elite have no idea about IT and while they have made many wise choice in theory (eIDAS, e-billings, certified signed emails and so on) the implementation is obscene and mostly done on the shoulders of non-EU firms by not really competent local developers and the result is a practical MESS. All other the EU we almost have smart-card nfc IDs but using them is a pain because of crappy proprietary middlewaren and crapplications even more crappy on top, with public services designed by some mentally ill child with a keyboard. We have public accurate maps of the territory and no unified public way to access them, there is no public common conferencing decentralized/federated infra, some public body offer Big Blue Button or Jitsi meet based infra, others choose some USA private firm. Public money, public code is told everywhere but only told in most of the cases.

The sole way we can fill the gap is MANDATE FLOSS, publicly funding existing FLOSS projects and offering them all the infra through public universities and research bodies to create an EU-FLOSS ecosystem because that's the future we need, where once spread everywhere (desktops, smartphones, cars, domestic IoT etc) will allow private sector to pick and evolve individual ideas. This is the European way and we know it works, IF DONE. Unfortunately most fails to understand IT at all so it's not done, simply. As a result no digital sovereignty is possible on scale.

>> Small, medium size farmers are disappearing fast, they quit or at best being absorbed by large farmcorps.

> So making agricultural markets orders of magnitudes more efficient is destroying it in your view?

Yes, of course it is.

It's like replacing families by hell called a "System" - wet dream of the eg. leftists.

It literaly destroy "market" becouse producers side disappear and you have just institution :)

It destroys it becouse no one know how or want to do that hard agriculture business. People will just prefer to sit in slums around big cities. What they can do anyway if everything is not big but giant ? How to buy such area ? How to even learn what to do with it ?? How to acquire buyers if you even get that giant area LOL ? And if it to big for one man or family how to get enough workers (why they even wanted to live slums ? how they even learn what to do??) ??

That giant and efficient (in one dimension) thing just extend himself into lack of self-sufficiency on multigeneration time scale.

Monoculture becose it's cheaper ? :>

Product quality ??? Compare to XO brandy, champagne or artisanal leather wallets. Not to boxed milk with "not yet discovered" PFASes or future "improvements".

Food security in case of war or invasion ? Or mass drone invasion ? Without small and medium agriculture you have nowhere to run. And why to even run - do one giant owner will take multiple ex-bigcity refugees to his home (and feed them few months) or just hire security to shot them or scary of his land ?

And even if giant owner want to help he can't. Becouse hi is only one. Compare to many small/farms - they are somehow just "human" and humanity sized...

Don Corleone was planting tomatoes at the end ;)

I met few peoples that when stopped to be young just moved to province and started peacefull living of the land. Giant farms are a no go for that purposes.

And yes, eg. China builds piggeries and cowsheds town-sized now. Now imagine one case of some-flue in that "town" - best case... And suddenly millions have prices hike or are starving. Or Africa countries get very cheap but toxic meat. Or animal food. Eg. with prions included...

And all of that are just real world facts and "technicals". Now add greeeeed by "lawful" owners. Tell me - is that hypothetical ? \s You easily can write long replay or tree of them just on that subject :>

Corect way is to not build hell on earth in the first place.

Not all progress is good progress. Adding lead to paint was progress at the time. Same with using asbestos for insulation. We’ve since decided that the costs outweigh the benefits there.

Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.

There is no equivalence between (a) "internet" or "high end computer chips" (much less "technology" or "innovation") and (b) "search engines" or "social media sites". Except if one is Silicon Valley VC, Big Tech employee, "tech" journalist, payola recipient or other supporter of "Big Tech". This is false quivalence, a flawed premise. Arguments relying on a flawed premise are, of course, inherently flawed.

If there is one thing we need to be afraid of, it is, that we don't regulate tech giants enough. That they can continue to exploit people. Maybe also, that GDPR continues to be violated by 90% of companies, because they think they will get away with it.