Proposal Would Give EU Power To Boot Tech Giants Out of European Market (arstechnica.com) 85
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The EU wants to arm itself with new powers to take on big technology companies, including the ability to force them to break up or sell some of their European operations if their market dominance is deemed to threaten the interests of customers and smaller rivals. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton told the Financial Times that the proposed remedies, which he said would only be used in extreme circumstances, also include the ability to exclude large tech groups from the single market altogether. In addition, Brussels is considering a rating system that would allow the public and stakeholders to assess companies' behavior in areas such as tax compliance and the speed with which they take down illegal content.
"There is a feeling from end users of these platforms that they are too big to care," said Mr. Breton, who is leading the overhaul of digital rules in the bloc. "[Under] certain conditions we may also have the power to impose structural separation." The new EU legislation would increase Brussels' powers to scrutinize the way technology companies gather information on users, following concerns raised by independent researchers that the voluntary disclosures groups make are often misleading or partial. Mr. Breton confirmed that the EU would not remove the limited liability that companies have for the content published on their platforms. "The safe harbor of the liability exemption will stay," he said. "That's something that's accepted by everyone." Mr. Breton said draft legislation will be ready by the end of the year. Proposals are being finalized, and once they are agreed they will go through the European Parliament and the European Council.
"There is a feeling from end users of these platforms that they are too big to care," said Mr. Breton, who is leading the overhaul of digital rules in the bloc. "[Under] certain conditions we may also have the power to impose structural separation." The new EU legislation would increase Brussels' powers to scrutinize the way technology companies gather information on users, following concerns raised by independent researchers that the voluntary disclosures groups make are often misleading or partial. Mr. Breton confirmed that the EU would not remove the limited liability that companies have for the content published on their platforms. "The safe harbor of the liability exemption will stay," he said. "That's something that's accepted by everyone." Mr. Breton said draft legislation will be ready by the end of the year. Proposals are being finalized, and once they are agreed they will go through the European Parliament and the European Council.
end of globalism (Score:1)
EU is cutting off US companies.
US and India are cutting off the Chinese. The closing off of international trade will lead to a recession, on top of our Covid recession. It'll be a one-two gut punch to the working class.
Sadly we can expect the West to continue to buy Russian gas and Saudi oil. We protect consumers from evil Netflix and Google, but the fucked up politics of the middle-east or the rogue nation of Russia? Obviously not as big deal to those in power.
Re:end of globalism (Score:5, Insightful)
EU is not "cutting off" US companies. EU asks companies that do business in the EU respect the rights of its citizens, and play on a level field with the rest of the companies that operate in the EU. And they do this in a very transparent way - by drafting legislation, which will go through scrutiny in the European Parliament, where the said "tech giants" lobby extensively and often limit and soften this legislation to a significant degree.
All this is in response of behavior from the said "tech giants" that is more and more harmful to the economy and to the people they claim to "service".
But it is so easy to pain measures that are against the interests of the tech oligarchs like Zuck and in the interests of the common folk as "penalizing" them.
Here's a handkerchief, wipe your tears for the suffering of the billionaires at the hands of the EU.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What an idiotic comment from you again.
Of course they don't have massively exploitative companies like Facebook. The EU has laws and regulations etc against it. Of course you are too ignorant to understand that.
And then without missing a beat you continue with the absurdity that what the US is doing against China is somehow equally above board.
As if
draft legislation will be ready by the end of the year. Proposals are being finalized, and once they are agreed they will go through the European Parliament and the European Council.
was somehow equivalent to Trump ruling by decree that TikTok is bad. Based on nothing but them trolling him.
It's what we expect from you Jarwulf.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you Mr. Dollar Ton? Why the AC post?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:end of globalism (Score:5, Insightful)
GDPR is a clusterfuck of stupidity.
This is, like, just your opinion, man. At least it is well-substantiated by facts and reasoning... Not.
it's exactly because the EU can't compete, and likes creating bullshit regulations like GDPR.
Bro, do you even English?
On the "points" you're failing to make:
GDPR is not about competition. It does not give unfair advantage to EU companies, on the contrary, it places all companies that want to operate in the EU under the same rules for protection of customer data. It is also transparent, fairly clear and straightforward to implement.
Compare that to the recent pressure of the US government on players that are a direct threat to their US competitors - it is applied to specific companies after lobbying by their US rivals, it is based on vague and unsubstantiated claims of "national security risks", and it is actually a rather transparent effort to transfer part of the value those companies create to specific cronies of the chief administrator for free. Unlike the GDPR, this is a textbook example of anti-competitive behavior.
Re: (Score:1)
Compare that to the recent pressure of the US government on players that are a direct threat to their US competitors - it is applied to specific companies after lobbying by their US rivals, it is based on vague and unsubstantiated claims of "national security risks", and it is actually a rather transparent effort to transfer part of the value those companies create to specific cronies of the chief administrator for free. Unlike the GDPR, this is a textbook example of anti-competitive behavior.
I think it's also worth pointing out that this type of behaviour is exactly what the US government has lambasted China for. Forcing foreign companies to invest and build local corporations so that their expertise, technology, and data, can be stolen by the local government. The US is no longer trying to create a fair framework of corporate competition and has devolved into doing the exact same thing it claims is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not damn the whole GDPR, but having to click through an agreement on each web site is nuts. And sites claiming that they must have hundreds of cookies is BS too. I would like that to be punishable by law.
Re: end of globalism (Score:3)
Something I don't understand in all of this - why don't these companies simply operate in Switzerland, England, Norway, etc to simply sidestep the EU? If the EU doesn't like it, they can simply set up another great firewall.
Not that I'm particularly against breaking up some of these companies, especially Facebook, but it's incredibly annoying that France thinks it can censor Google anywhere in the world that a French citizen might see something that France considers to be a thought crime, thus effectively a
Re: (Score:2)
They were/are operating in Ireland for this reason. But the EU has put pressure on Ireland to cut it out. Why didn't they choose other nations? Path of least resistance, Ireland was wiling to give pretty sizeable tax breaks for all of the tech jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
Something I don't understand in all of this - why don't these companies simply operate in Switzerland, England, Norway, etc to simply sidestep the EU? If the EU doesn't like it, they can simply set up another great firewall.
Not that I'm particularly against breaking up some of these companies, especially Facebook, but it's incredibly annoying that France thinks it can censor Google anywhere in the world that a French citizen might see something that France considers to be a thought crime, thus effectively applying its censorship globally. If every country did this, we wouldn't have an internet.
It's not a matter of where they are based, it is a case of if they wish to have access to the European market. If they do not wish to serve EU customers, they do not have to. If they do want EU customers, they need to follow EU regulations. Kinda like how companies that do not operate in the US do not need to follow US regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
the primrose path to fascism
+1, would laugh again.
Can you explain what it means, though, it must be a meaning of "primrose" and "fascism" that are in use only in your narrow circle and very different from what we in the rest of the world mean by them.
Re: (Score:1)
No... The EU is merely cutting off companies. If you can't compete, kick competitors out of the market by legal fiat. Works for China.
This is simply jingoism masquerading as a facade of justice, pure and simple. Since the EU is falling behind in the world stage in economics and other fronts, so instead of trying to get competitive, out comes the knee-jerk laws whose only reason for existing are levers for trade wars, and as ways to attack foreign competition when EU companies fail to pass muster in the world market. The EU is better than this. The US under Trump, is ugly, but the EU going with "Europe first" stuff and "Make Europe Great Again" claptrap is unacceptable, because they know better, and there are existing antitrust laws they can use as well.
The EU has been "the light on the hill", and the torch bearer of democracy after the US has fallen to demagoguery and extreme rhetoric. Now, they too traipse down the primrose path to fascism.
That's a lot of paranoia. Did you hear that from the QAnon network?
Re: What would Jacinda Do? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
95% of the Australian media have to beat up Labor and/or praise the coalition 100% of the time to keep the coalition at ~50.1% in the polls. That is how bad the coalition is.
Re:end of globalism (Score:5, Insightful)
"It'll be a one-two gut punch to the working class."
Right, because globalization was so great for them. /s
Re: (Score:3)
Re:end of globalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because globalization was so great for them. /s
Globalization was great for the Eastern half of the EU. Not so good for the Western half. But even in the West, the Dutch, Germans, and Nordics have prospered with globalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Globalization is only good for countries that are starting out with lower labor rates than others. They can take advantage of their lower labor rates to gain jobs that they otherwise would not have. Globalization is always bad for countries above the curve as they lose their better paying jobs. Globalization is the bastard child of capitalism and libertarianism after the divorce from hell.
At the end of the day, it's a race to the bottom. If you were already at the bottom it is a huge win. For everyone else
Re: (Score:1)
THIS.
100% agreed. I would add, however, that there have been a few, very few winners at the top. The billionaires. Look closely at how economies are actually structured. Look closely at how politics actually works (as opposed to what it should do) and realize that no matter who loses, those at the top always win.
My earlier comment was written from the perspective of a Rust Belt (USA) native who watched all of his life prospects vanish into thin air after ~ 1983...
Most of our economy now re4volves around ex
Re: (Score:3)
Notably billionaires and millionaires both prefer Biden.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/1... [cnbc.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Globalists profited immensely from globalization.
Billionaires are flat out attempting to buy the election for Biden. Bloomberg is spending $100 million in Florida alone. Zuckerberg is spending $250 just in Wisconsin. Who knows how much is being spent in dark money and other places?
https://www.henryherald.com/cn... [henryherald.com]
https://justthenews.com/politi... [justthenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg is spending $250 just in Wisconsin.
He probably has socks more expensive than that.
Flame-bait (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry (Score:4, Funny)
Trump is in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trump is in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Well Trump has a point...
The idea that key parts of your national infrastructure would be provided as a black box by a potentially hostile foreign power is insane. No competent government should allow this.
But the US has a lot more to lose than China does, US black boxes are in almost every country in the world right now whereas China are only just getting started.
The problem with google/facebook is that they are centralising the web, when it should be open and decentralised. Governments don't care about the centralisation aspect so long as they control it, but it becomes a big problem if someone else controls it.
The answer to this, is to move towards a decentralised model with federation - like email. Everyone is free to use their own service, pick from hundreds of potential suppliers or use the service bundled with their isp etc. The thing is a decentralised service would benefit the users, but wouldn't make billions for whoever operates it so there is no incentive to push for such a system. Email still exists as it does because it comes from a day when the internet was not driven by commercial interests.
Re:Trump is in trouble (Score:4, Informative)
The EU's main concerns are privacy and monopolies. Privacy protections here are quite strong and with the UK threatening to be dicks after brexit there is now a stronger focus on monopolies, state aid and fairness too.
So from the EU's point of view Google needs to respect privacy rules and there should be a healthy market for search engines and mobile operating systems. In the case of the latter that means more freedom for manufacturers to customize Android.
Re: Trump is in trouble (Score:2)
Brexit has got nothing to do with this, although you do seem to enjoy having little rants about the bad old UK. Of course, the EU haven't been dicks at all when it comes to Brexit and certainly wouldn't undermine the UK's sovereignty, internal integrity and force them in to a corner that leaves them with few options. That's like Americans blaming the Soviet Union for all the problems of the Cold War.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people seem to think that "sovereignty" means getting special treatment. No other country in the world has what the UK is asking the EU for, and it would massively undermine the EU's sovereignty and economy to grant it.
Just saying "we are sovereign now" doesn't change the fact that the EU market is nearly 7 times the size of the UK market. It doesn't mean we will get better trade deals, it means we will get worse trade deals. Look at the one we just did with Japan, it's similar too but worse than the o
Web (Score:2)
The answer to this, is to move towards a decentralised model with federation - like email. Everyone is free to use their own service, pick from hundreds of potential suppliers or use the service bundled with their isp etc
I'm pretty sure you literally described the world wide web. If you are specifically talking about social media, then you just described mastodon. If you are talking about search, then you just described DuckDuckGo.
These things already exist. You are free to use them, or to not to. The cost for entry is almost zero - just some time and a bit of hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with many of his actions is, he creates precedence cases. He thinks he gains something with his unconventional approaches, his voters think the same. Yet it will all backfire, because now it is acceptable to do the same to the US.
I think you mean precedent, different word. I find it funny that the Trump haters have co-opted that argument now while the Obama apologists deflected it when it was thrown at him. Pandora's box cannot be closed after the fact no matter where your loyalties lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see myself as a Trump hater. Compared to the news here in Europe I have quite some understanding for his politics.
I don't even know what you mean about Obama. He was seen as pretty upright and a moral statesman here, while Trump is seen as an unreliable maniac. He has ended so many treaties and threatened us so often, it seems easier to get along with Russia and China than with the US by now.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not my first language, thanks for the hint.
You're welcome.
I don't see myself as a Trump hater. Compared to the news here in Europe I have quite some understanding for his politics. I don't even know what you mean about Obama. He was seen as pretty upright and a moral statesman here, while Trump is seen as an unreliable maniac.
What I meant about Obama is the backlash by the never-Trumpers against things that Obama never was questioned for doing. For instance: The claim Trump is acting like a king for his executive orders. Yet Obama did the same thing. He actually stated publicly that he didn't NEED Congress as long as he had his phone and a pen. Trump was roasted for months about "putting kids in cages" yet these so-called cages were built under Obama. In fact many of the media photos that proved Trump's inhum
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.pewresearch.org/gl... [pewresearch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world is now going to insist Google/Facebook etc have part ownership in their own country, with data stored there and not in America
Exactly. Force the companies to build data centers, employ their citizens, and pay the associated high taxes in their countries. Glad we got to the bottom of this.
nice contrast (Score:5, Interesting)
Maximum company size - long overdue (Score:5, Insightful)
Economy of scale is an amazing thing, and essential to modern life. However, beyond a certain size, companies become a danger. "Too big to fail", demanding and getting government bailouts for their own stupid decisions. Or simply becoming too dominant - like Facebook and Google - and wielding too much power over society.
It seems to me that there is a relatively simple regulatory fix: Limit the maximum size of a company. Any company with an annual turnover greater than "X" must divest or divide itself into independent entities with a turnover smaller than a tenth of X.
Regarding the current kerfuffle, where Facebook is threatening to leave the Europe: The universal reaction I have come across here (I'm European) is: "So what? Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
Re: (Score:1)
Any company with an annual turnover greater than "X" must divest or divide itself into independent entities with a turnover smaller than a tenth of X.
Won't work. We already have workarounds for this. Just look at Alphabet. Technical a different company from Google, from Nest, from the Adsense, and the rest of what we colloquially refer to as Google's range of services. That hasn't stopped these various "independent" subsidiaries from integrating heavily at the expense of competition.
You have to be very specific with the legal implementation of splitting companies, or you'll end up with laws that are just another fun loophole for lawyers to play with.
Re:Maximum company size - long overdue (Score:5, Informative)
Just like television stations, news papers, etc do have a journalist deontological code, should FB and Google have this. If you violate said code, you loose your license to be whatever your deontological code is about.
Here in most of the EU a journalist certainly cannot publish whatever lies and bullshit about somebody or some organization. They have to commit to a deontological code, and also accept laws like the ones about slander and defamation. Blatant lies harm your target's reputation. If you do this with the intent of harming his or her reputation then no matter your motherfucking free speech rights, you are going to get sued and fined.
This is also for publishers: if a newspaper (the publishing capacity for journalists writing articles for it) publishes a journalist's blatant lies, then the newspaper will be held responsible. Not just the journalist.
Why does FB or do Google think they are not publishers? They certainly are publishers. In every imaginable thinkable way. It's pure rash intellectual dishonesty to say that they are not. They most definitely are.
The level playing field with newspaper thus is that FB and Good and etc commit to journalism rules: journalist deontologies, slander and defamation rules. Etcetera.
"But they are too big and there are too many posts on their platforms", I hear you say. So fucking what? THEY decided THEMSELVES to be a very very big newspaper. This is THEIR OWN problem. The scale of their enterprise is NOT the problem of the law. THEY must commit to the law, no matter their scale.
The law is the same for everybody. This is the level playing field. If they want to be big and scale to a huge size in amounts of publications (also no matter who created the publications, THEY are publicizing them on THEIR 'platforms' = THEIR newspaper), they THEY should organize their business such that THEY commit to the law. The ONE law that everybody must commit to. Small, and big.
That is how it works here in the EU. We give no fucking shit about how it works in the US. Go fuck yourself in the US with your US laws. We have EU laws. And if you do business in the EU, you follow our EU laws. Or you leave. End of fucking story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maximum company size - long overdue (Score:5, Insightful)
I had the same reaction to Facebooks threat of withdrawing from Europe if they have to obey the law. It's like a bankrobber complaining about how they must stop robbing banks if the court upholds the ban on bankrobbery.
"But it is a such a profitable business model providing job opportunities to lots of money launderers, get-away drivers, fences etc! We have to completely stop robbing banks in Europe if you insist it is illegal! Oh noes! Think of the children!"
If you are breaking the law, you should stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Deontological Ethics [stanford.edu].
For those of us who've not read a philosophy course in 3+ decades, you're basically talking about rules-based ethics.
I'm more of a consequentialist, myself. Rules are meaningless without cognisance of what's likely to result from obeying them. (But it is just as true that one is not likely to achieve desirable outcomes without having and following some principles. Anyhow, thanks for the interesting and well-reasoned post.)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like television stations, news papers, etc do have a journalist deontological code, should FB and Google have this. If you violate said code, you loose your license to be whatever your deontological code is about.
Here in most of the EU a journalist certainly cannot publish whatever lies and bullshit about somebody or some organization. They have to commit to a deontological code, and also accept laws like the ones about slander and defamation. Blatant lies harm your target's reputation. If you do this with the intent of harming his or her reputation then no matter your motherfucking free speech rights, you are going to get sued and fined.
This is also for publishers: if a newspaper (the publishing capacity for journalists writing articles for it) publishes a journalist's blatant lies, then the newspaper will be held responsible. Not just the journalist.
Why does FB or do Google think they are not publishers? They certainly are publishers. In every imaginable thinkable way. It's pure rash intellectual dishonesty to say that they are not. They most definitely are.
The main difference between FB/Google/et.al. is in the examples you cite is the ability to control what is published. A TV station or newspaper does not allow unfettered access to it's platform; anyone cannot simply broadcast their material using a TV station's signal or have the newspaper print their article without review. Thus, holding them to a standard that makes them responsible for what they air or publish is reasonable, since it is their choice what to publish or air.
So the question becomes, should
Re: (Score:2)
Big fish eat little fish, and if you don't like capitalism, don't leave.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that there is a relatively simple regulatory fix: Limit the maximum size of a company. Any company with an annual turnover greater than "X" must divest or divide itself into independent entities with a turnover smaller than a tenth of X.
I think you might be underestimating the complexities involved in such a regulator scheme. Off the top of my head
Re: (Score:2)
Then we get more bad products.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that there is a relatively simple regulatory fix: Limit the maximum size of a company. Any company with an annual turnover greater than "X" must divest or divide itself into independent entities with a turnover smaller than a tenth of X.
Perhaps, but you'd have to set the bar pretty high if you use market cap or else you'd start forcing EU companies to divest as well. Fintech, for example, had a nearly $400 billion market cap last time I checked. You certainly wouldn't want to use revenue, since you would breakup a lot of European stalwarts long before you got to FB.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly (Score:1)
A VPN for 5 bucks and you're still good, just like US-Citizens with Chinese companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Global scope makes the big platforms interesting (Score:2)
IMO it is the global scope of the big media platforms that makes them interesting and convenient to use. A lot of the data use complaints are rooted in the notion of companies covering the costs of "free services". FB, et al, could charge for a data protected version of that service. What percentage of their user base would pick the data protected version over the free version. I suspect it would be very low.
I used to be opposed to this kind of thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU has been talking about things like this for many years, in large part due to an inability to compete. At the end of the day the inability to compete is due at least in part to the absolute monopoly they have. There is no practical means by which their monopoly can be broken up. They are rapidly becoming a worldwide oligarchy.
They have a level of power unheard of in history. They have the historical power of the telephone companies, post office, technology companies, news media and advertising industry combined. There are no checks and balances on their power and they freely abuse their power to censor, guide and cancel those with whom they politically disagree and support.
The censorship has become overwhelming and out of control. News stories can be and do get quashed in hours or minutes based on their edicts. After the Drudge report broke the story about Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton it was thought that this could never happen again due to the Internet, that this level of censorship had become unthinkable. You might even remember the saying the Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it, unfortunately this no longer holds true. The next news story that needs to change the world may be one that you support and big tech opposes. Is this something that you want?
Unfortunately big tech has been abusing their monopoly to interfere in elections for their favored candidates. They have done this in elections all over the world, feeling that the the world's nations are somehow vassals to big tech. They are currently actively interfering in the 2020 US election. Do you really want a handful of unelected bureaucrats in an oligarchy picking your political leaders? Your a fool if you think this power is only going to be abused against Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
" Do you really want a handful of unelected bureaucrats in an oligarchy picking your political leaders? Your a fool if you think this power is only going to be abused against Trump."
I would argue that this has already happened and in fact has been happening since they shot Kennedy. The US at least is rapidly returning to the way things were done prior to the Crash of 1929, and many think this is a good idea. Of course, many fail to study history.
Re: (Score:2)
It has certainly been happening for the last few years. Anyone who thinks that it's okay because they are using their power against Trump is a fool. They are simply establishing precedent in the United States. If they get to pick the president, then they get to pick anyone who holds an office of power. There's something wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have a level of power unheard of in history.
Ah...no. The East India Company and the Dutch East India Company held far greater power in the 1600s & 1700s. May we never see their like again.
Re: (Score:2)
The East India company is an excellent counter example, arguably the best in history. It helps to illustrate my point though, you have to go back to the East India company to find a company with a comparable level of power.
Even then big tech has incredible influence over countries that do have navies. By influencing the leadership and policies of those countries they effectively have more power than the East India company ever did.
Time... (Score:2)
...time make a big bowl of popcorn and watch this backfire something fierce on the EU....
Re: (Score:1)
Comments above are sometimes funny. Clueless commies.
Re: (Score:2)
Referring to your own comment in the third person I see....
Re: (Score:1)
I'm far from clueless. I'm certainly not a commie. I haven't commented on anything else in this article.
Seems you're clueless. Maybe you're a commie?
Agree, the EU is too big, we should break it up. (Score:2)
The same could be said for the power of the EU/Brussels institution. They have become too big to fail, can't be regulated and do not act in the interest of the European citizens. They should be broken up and the power delegated to the national governments.