91–100 of 199 posts
For Google this is just like parking tickets to UPS. A cost of doing business in town.
this comment always comes up and it's _wrong_. The goal of the regulation is to get the operators to comply, which they usually do after fines (EDIT: and litigations and whining, of course), because the costs of infractions are increased if they don't comply.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this comment always comes up and it's _wrong_. The goal of the regulation is to get the operators to comply, which they usually do after fines (EDIT: and litigations and whining, of course), because the costs of infractions are increased if they don't comply.
The issue is they usually comply with the specific law being broken, and then immediately stop complying with a different law The goal should be to incentivise them to comply with the law as a whole, not to keep deliberately breaking different sections of the law to make profit above the level of fines That's why people want the level of the fines to go up, to disincentivise the more broad lawbreaking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this comment always comes up and it's _wrong_. The goal of the regulation is to get the operators to comply, which they usually do after fines (EDIT: and litigations and whining, of course), because the costs of infractions are increased if they don't comply.
Not really, next time they just make a calculated risk decision, if the revenue from non-compliance is quite significant than the fine they have to pay later (if they have to, because I can imagine so many other cases which went unnoticed or didn't result in a fine) there is no reason for them to comply next time. It's not like they will be prohibited from doing a business after n number of compliance violations or f…
For Google this is just like parking tickets to UPS. A cost of doing business in town.
...but this is a private(ish) business, it doesn't have a printer in the back yard, a billion is a lot no matter how you look at it, especially if they're now facing a tough choice between cannibalizing their results with AI summaries or having AI competitors eating their lunch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It‘s nice to have such revenue to fund EU programs on digital sovereignty. European institutions give plenty of money to startups. You need an entry to the program, but when you are in, it can account for 50-70% or more in your early stage funding. And that‘s nice, because you keep more equity.
I don't think that's a sustainable model. Also most of those fines goes into filling the gaps in budgets related to recurring costs of maintaining the bureaucratic behemoth rather than funding research or innovation.
How long have you been working inside the behemoth? Can you tell us more about the inner workings, where the money goes, how much, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the goal isn’t to punish, it’s to get them to do what the law wants them to do. The fine is supposed to be a slap on the wrist - the actual desired behaviour is compliance
That is the incorrect way to apply fines. The first fine should sting and the second should be damaging to a company and the third should be crippling. The EU has been fining Google for years to no avail.
Me after a quick research:
2017: €2.42 billion fine for favoring its own comparison shopping service.
Results: huge changes to Google's shopping service.
2018: €4 billion fine over Android-related practices.
Results: Google Play separately from Google Search and Chrome, and manufacturers gained more flexibility over preinstalled apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's a sustainable model. Also most of those fines goes into filling the gaps in budgets related to recurring costs of maintaining the bureaucratic behemoth rather than funding research or innovation.
The US was lucky to have Musk and DOGE fix that bureaucratic behemoth, if only the EU had the same luck. How long have you been working inside the behemoth? Can you tell us more about the inner workings, where the money goes, how much, etc?