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

Post by sensanaty » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 9:05 AM UTC

Too wrote: post #498

ADeerAppeared wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some excellent news for you about the legality of targeted advertising under the GDPR. The GDPR is very clear about this. Advertising is not a legitimate interest or a functionally-required data processing, ergo, it may only be done with user consent. And that user consent may not be coerced in any way at all , you may not even refuse access to services if users reject their data being used. It's taking a whil…

Good intentions but how well is that working out so far? Only thing we got was annoying cookie popups everywhere, where consent is one click away and reject is three layers behind a small “learn more” button.

Post by machiaweliczny » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 9:18 AM UTC

cheptsov wrote: post #189

autoexec wrote: post #180

The EU is free to pass laws preventing gatekeepers and insisting on interoperability requirements and Apple is free to refuse to do that and not offer their non-competitive gatekeeping products in the EU. There's zero reason to think that this will mean the EU won't have a tech market. It just won't have one that includes Apple products which refuse to follow the law. Seems like a massive win for the EU, and because…

Except EU doesn’t have big tech.

Post by ADeerAppeared » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 9:21 AM UTC

ryan93 wrote: post #347

ADeerAppeared wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU didn't go into an uncontrolled spree investing every company that had .com in its name and ruined thousands of lives and wasted billions of dollars. This is the thing that so many Americans in tech don't seem to understand. VC Twitter is full of smugposting about how the US has "$5 trillion market-cap of startups" and the EU doesn't. And what they miss is that the EU doesn't want Silicon Valley. It doesn't want…

The five trillion market cap is from very profitable companies

Post by voltaireodactyl » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 9:30 AM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #264

monksy wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that most people hate risk. It's that individuals whom are harmed by sociopathic individuals that exploit methodologies, techniques, and products to enrich, steal, and harm the population. (When I say that I mean financially, emotionally, socially, physically, etc). To add further insult to injury, defending ones self against these individuals is disproportionately impossible. Socially: Creating and cultivat…

I'm not insulting people who hate risk. For the stability and health of society, it's good that most people are that way. We need people who shake their fist at anything new or different to keep us sane (people like you it seems, from your laundry list of frustrations). But we also need the people who do like risk taking and new stuff, and there's less of them. So innovation is much more of a fragile thing than stasi…

Post by pembrook » Sat, Jul 27, 2024, 9:55 AM UTC

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #518

pembrook wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens…

"before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all." ---- Let me laugh out loud. Those, who govern these companies know 10 years ahead how and what will happen. Bigdiks higher up has 10-20 year plans. And people talk about "before we had a chance to experience the upsides and the downsides". Get a grip on reality.