91–100 of 142 posts
Will future tech companies bother making their products available in the EU? Will it be worth it, or is just too big of a risk with uncertain outcomes?
Every other industry thrives despite regulations. It’ll be no different for future tech companies.
I hope big tech just leaves the EU and leaves them scrambling to replace large swaths of infrastructure while everything goes down.
I can tell you that a lot of the EU hope the same - at this point MS teams has become a meme of poor quality - but because of the MS monopoly, it is not possible to compete And because of the US' blatant lack of antitrust initiatives, probably because of the leverage it affords the US, everybody are forced this garbage upon them.
This is because 99.99% of people in the EU have zero understanding of how heavily reliant they are on American big tech under the hood. Nearly every piece of technology or every running service in the EU relies on it.
I guarantee you most EU citizens don't want YouTube, Google Maps, Google Search, everything running on AWS/Azure/GCP, everything reliant on Intel/Nvidia IP, etc taken away from them.
> blatant lack of antitrust initiatives
The fact of the matter is that the EU model does not work. If we adopted it, we'd be 20 years behind in tech, as evidenced by the sheer stagnation in the EU.
The EU is great at academic research and has absolutely shot itself in the foot when it comes to industrializing any of it in the tech space. Your best engineers and companies often simply move here after they get sick of being underpaid or hamstrung.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your pictures weren't used to train AI models. Facebook can no longer create shadow profiles for people who aren't on it and thus can't consent. You can ask any company to tell you all they know about you, and delete it (with some small regulatory exceptions). You don't have 50 different chargers in your home. And a million other things.
> Your pictures weren't used to train AI models. This is almost certainly untrue. But if it gives you a piece of mind, so be it. > Facebook can no longer create shadow profiles for people who aren't on it. What impact does Facebook not having a ledger with my name on it have on my life? You still have ads and tracking in Europe, except now with cookie banners. > You can ask any company to tell you all they know about…
If it is untrue, they'll get slapped in the face with another multi-billion dollar fine, and have to remove the offending models.
> Have you ever done this?
Yes, I do this regularly for backups, and have asked for sketchy orgs I've had to use to delete my data.
> I don't need anyone telling me what types of devices to buy. I prefer competition and can make up my own mind about chargers. Role of the state is not de-cluttering my home.
Do you also prefer competition and to make up your own mind about unsanitary food? Unsafe cars? Unsafe airliners and airlines? Where would you draw the line of what is acceptable role of the state?
> I'd prefer Google Maps and free 2 day shipping to these
Google Maps is still there. I have free 1 day, and sometimes same day shipping with Amazon in France, so idk what you're referring to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny that there are two common and opposite narratives in HN comments for EU fines on tech companies. The is to claim that the fines are far too small, and the companies will happily just continue breaking the laws and treat the fines as a cost of doing business. The other is that the fines are so impractically huge that they're going to drive the companies out of the EU entirely. Both narratives are just nonse…
Except the change the EU is trying to encourage with this ruling is really absurdly dumb. It's clearly and transparently rent seeking. We are already in a trade war and the only one that refuses to acknowledge it is the US. The US needs to embargo and deprive EU of the essential tech infrastructure they provide it. Just turn it off or brick it one day and leave the EU scrambling to catch up with 20+ years of stagnati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they were found guilty of (was this even a trial?) seems like could apply to literally any business that participates in two markets. >Tying its online classified ads service Facebook Marketplace to its personal social network Facebook. This means that all Facebook users automatically have access and get regularly exposed to Facebook Marketplace whether they want it or not. You can accuse almost anything of that…
A retail store selling various kinds of retail goods and a Social Network embedding a Classified Ads service in their core offering are not remotely equivalent.
The reason it's so good is that it has real people's identities tied to the listings. That massively decreases issues around scams and safety.
I want those things to be connected. I don't want regulations that make that illegal. That's the opposite of progress and consumer benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your pictures weren't used to train AI models. This is almost certainly untrue. But if it gives you a piece of mind, so be it. > Facebook can no longer create shadow profiles for people who aren't on it. What impact does Facebook not having a ledger with my name on it have on my life? You still have ads and tracking in Europe, except now with cookie banners. > You can ask any company to tell you all they know about…
Then why don’t you exercise your personal preferences by moving to the US?
Like you have to get a work visa or green card which can be extremely difficult.
There are a ton of Europeans who would love to move to the US and can't.
Are you trying to suggest Europeans shouldn't complain about the EU? Because that seems... backwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A retail store selling various kinds of retail goods and a Social Network embedding a Classified Ads service in their core offering are not remotely equivalent.
No, the social network with the classifieds service is much better. The reason it's so good is that it has real people's identities tied to the listings. That massively decreases issues around scams and safety. I want those things to be connected. I don't want regulations that make that illegal. That's the opposite of progress and consumer benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In your scenario, Alice already decided not to buy anything from AcmeShop. Not really, that's exactly what "remarketing" ads are for — companies track people's interest and remind them of their products. However, in this case, Facebook is double dipping by taking money from their paying customer (AcmeShop), and then using data they obtained whilst serving their paying customer to frontrun the customer. If you or I…
But I see "remarketing" ads everywhere. Google does it too. How is Facebook showing remarketing ads for items on Facebook Marketplace, the ads paid for by a Marketplace seller who is boosting their item, any different from Google showing remarketing ads for items on eBay, paid for by an eBay seller? Because that same thing would be happening if AcmeShop were using Google Analytics. Or if Alice had just done a Google…
Google doing the same thing is hardly a good excuse.
In your analogy, you don't just "see". You're employed by a nearby stall because you're one of the few plumbers in the town, so you're in that shop a lot, but you're also making photos of their customers and then use those photos to find them on the street and advertise your frobulators. You really don't see anything weird about this scenario?
Besides, if a shop has only one chance ever, what are remarketing ads (marketed by Facebook to businesses) for?