EU has done a lot to stifle the tech sector in the EU.
This is a step in the right direction however. It's not possible to create a tech sector when all your data passes through USA, NSA and other 3 letter entities. China did it, Russia partly did it. The US is doing it now. I hope the EU acts swiftly to build a moat to stop haemorraging human and capital resources to the US. There is plenty of talent to support a thriving euro- and world-class tech ecosystem, but it needs to be strategically protected, the same way the US has done to date
Probably by far the biggest and most positive thing the EU could do to ensure EU startups come anywhere close to US startups in growth is to mandate English as the second official language for all EU members.
The language barrier is a HUGE problem for EU businesses. It's the main reason why online services grow 100x slower in the "European Union" compared to the same service being offered in the US, where a "state's language" makes no difference, because it's the same everywhere.
Because there isn't such "high scalability potential" as it is in the US, due to the language barrier, you also don't see as many investors throwing millions of euro at "ideas with potential".
Not sure why you've got downvoated into oblivion. Factually right, practically not possible (EU doesn't have that power). Also hugely unpopular, maybe that's why the dv happened.
a) That would kill the EU in an instance. Most people don't identify with the Bloc, they do with their countries and language is such an important fact of that.
b) The EU has exactly as much power as their member states (which are sovereign, see Brexit) give her. And the members have decided to not give her that particular ability.
Despite what you might read on the Internet the EU is NOT the United States of Europe. It (or a successor) may be one day, but that day is at least a century away.
The countries which have English as a second language.... were both British colonies until the 1960's. Malta had once even pondered integrating into the United Kingdom, though later gained independence and became a Republic. Cyprus has some undergraduate education in English (a friend of mine from Kuwait had gone to college there).
That just means that 3 or more are already on the plan. With the UK gone it s not even an issue of rivalry anymore. The eu could promote this as a means to facilitate international trade, and frankly i dont see why members would disagree since it s already de facto happening
This would help businesses, but it would take a long time to pay off. Furthermore, just because a language is taught in schools doesn't mean people become competent at it. Schools don't give students the experience required to become confident in the use of the language. If you don't achieve that then people will prefer their native language solution instead.
That aside, there's a much bigger problem: sovereignty. How many Europeans would just accept a foreign language being made mandatory in their country? Eastern Europe still remembers Russification. We also have the example of French and its spread in France. I'm afraid that this kind of a rule would threaten the entire European Union project.
Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway are at the top with very high proficiency. France is 31st and is famously terrible at teaching English. Spain is 35th, Italy 36th. So it seems to be possible to have good English from school when done correctly.
> How many Europeans would just accept a foreign language being made mandatory in their country?
Yep, almost nobody would accept this, that's for sure. People in France are already angry toward Ursula von der Leyen because she didn't speak enough French during the recent State of the Union... I personally don't care that much about my own native language and would love to see English be used instead, but that's clearly not the way others see it.
Seems unlikely. Translations aren’t that expensive. Different laws and regulations between EU members is a bigger problem. Take GDPR for example. One law, 27 agencies interpreting it in a different way.
The language fragmentation has quite a lot of associated costs. Translations are in fact quite expensive if you want to keep the quality of the messaging. But beyond that, the lack of common language means it is quite difficult to develop a common culture between Europeans countries. Between France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxemburg we have a somewhat shared culture because French is common to us, even if we have important local differences. For example as a swiss I consumed French and Belgian media my entire childhood, so I'm familiar with cultural references. When you move to Germany for example, you are now in a completely different bubble with very little shared context.
Belgium is a good example of how languages aren't such a big deal. Most websites here are either Dutch & French or only one language if you only want to sell to your own language community. There is not much shared culture between Flemings and Walloons. I have no idea what kind of music, tv shows, movies are popular in Wallonia nor could I tell you the name of 5 famous Walloons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yet we can do business with each other just fine.
While no doubt helpful it’s also completely unrealistic as a number of commenters have pointed out.
There are however many things the EU could work on that would help:
- common market for financial financial services (why does a FinTech company have to register in every country it wants to do business in?)
- common market for media rights (why do I have different rules to license a song or movie in different countries? We don’t need 27 iTunes Stores)
- common market for telecommunication (ISPs and mobile operators still function independently even if they share a brand)
- common labor market - make it easier to hire across borders (my employer is having a tough time hiring regional employees as we have to get set up in every country with a legal entity and register for taxes, social security)
It’s also important to acknowledge how far Europe has gotten. The common Customs area, the Euro, SEPA, Schengen all help make doing business in Europe across countries a lot easier. The also help make talent more mobile as it’s easier to move across borders.
I think you would have to mandate English as the first language to get on level terms with the USA.
Most educated Europeans already speak English as a second (or third, fourth, …) language, but many still prefer to be spoken to in their first language (historically often because they don’t speak English that well, but that already has been slowly changing for decades)
The EU or the nations which are members of the EU?
(Current EU VAT rules definitely suck for small multi-nation startups, but the rule as I understand it is “pay VAT where you customers are” which brings me back to the nations themselves rather than the supernational trading block).
The VAT rule is on the EU though. It was implemented without much thought about collateral damage. They even forgot to have a minimum threshold for it, which resulted in some online micro businesses shutting down. It took years for them to implement a minimum threshold. As the rules were initially, it encouraged very small digital businesses not to sell to other EU countries. Think about that.
You are in the UK. You create knitting patterns that you sell online. Somebody from Latvia wants to purchase your knitting pattern. However, you don't have any other customers from Latvia. You're better off not selling to that customer to avoid the paperwork for VAT to Latvia. This is a digital product that can be copied at nearly no cost.
Politicians saw the light at some point and implemented a minimum threshold for VAT for these kinds of payments. I still cannot understand why this took years.
> EU has done a lot to stifle the tech sector in the EU.
Examples? The only thing you might argue is privacy laws and there we could be thankful to the EU for being the only trading block that's made some (perhaps futile) effort to protect their civilians rights.
First, why can't you "create a tech sector when all your data passes through USA..."? What does one have to do with the other? Are you talking about espionage? If so, is there any evidence that the EU tech sector has been stifled because of US government espionage?
Also, this article is about data collection and disinformation. What does that have to do with "build[ing] a moat to stop haemorraging human and capital resources to the US" ?? And, anyways, what exactly has the US done, at a policy / regulatory level to "strategically protect" this?
The US has done (and avoided doing) everything to keep their tech giants getting bigger, from keeping centralized internet infrastructure on US soil to lax privacy laws, to blocking competing payments tech like blockchains, to immigrations law, to providing a good environment for those companies to grow grow grow. It's a strategic choice to dominate IT that has borne fruit, and only China got away. I don't think that was pure accident, just look at the contrast in welfare between the US big tech sector and the US telecom sector.
>If so, is there any evidence that the EU tech sector has been stifled because of US government espionage?
Other sectors have been, and there's no reason tech would be immune to this. Also, it's only logical that attempts to create an EU tech sector, therefore threatening the US dominance, would be met with attempts to stiffle it similar to the ones below.
>In 1999, Enercon, a German company and leading manufacturer of wind energy equipment, developed a breakthrough generator for wind turbines. After applying for a US patent, it had learned that Kenetech, an American rival, had submitted an almost identical patent application shortly before. By the statement of a former NSA employee, it was later discovered that the NSA had secretly intercepted and monitored Enercon's data communications and conference calls and passed information regarding the new generator to Kenetech.
>In the early 1990s, the US National Security Agency intercepted the communications between the European aerospace company Airbus and the Saudi Arabian national airline. In 1994, Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia after the NSA, acting as a whistleblower, reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[65] As a result, the American aerospace company McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) won the multibillion-dollar contract instead of Airbus.
>The American defense contractor Raytheon won a US$1.3 billion contract with the Government of Brazil to monitor the Amazon rainforest after the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), acting as a whistleblower, reported that Raytheon's French competitor Thomson-Alcatel had been paying bribes to get the contract.
>In order to boost America's position in trade negotiations with the then Japanese Trade Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, in 1995 the CIA eavesdropped on the conversations between Japanese bureaucrats and executives of car manufacturers Toyota and Nissan.
You can argue that the bribing cases make the US government the "good guy", but I can safely say that the NSA/CIA would not leverage it's espionage capabilites to subvert a US companies deals/operations.
And remember, these are only the cases that we know about.
The EU cannot create a tech sector like the other blocks because of the cultural barriers. There is no common language and no common media. That means you have to launch country by country, adapting product and marketing strategy for every country. Meanwhile, in the US it is easy to launch a simple product and market it to the entire country.
That means US companies are orders of magnitude easier to scale up to behemoths. In fact, if an EU tech company wants to grow really big, it is better off trying to conquer the US (like spotify).
There is no fix for this. Even if the EU managed to take away the many regulatory differences between member nations and created a funding source equal to silicon valley, and managed to keep the US tech giants at bay, the EU tech industry will never rival that of the US.
IMHO this is a good thing. Megacorporations are an economic antipattern. It is better to have a million small businesses serving their local market than a few giants covering the continent.
That's a common trope but i think it's false. Different languages did not matter for many other industries, autos, foods, tourism, etc. IT is not about making content, it's about hosting it and there are plenty of good hosts in EU.
It's not as if europeans learn about europe when they are on US social media anyway. Most of what they hear is about US and Trump, not their local stuff. That hasn't prevented Twitter and FB or ebay or whatever to become huge in europe. Besides far too many europeans do their work in English, hell even Brussels operates in english apart from some public appearances. I ve certainly never used another language in any EU project i joined.
Russian government had no part in this. It's just the fact that US companies didn't consider Russia a worthy market back then. So, naturally, we've had our own companies like VKontakte and Yandex copy what the US counterparts had to offer, and when Facebook and Google noticed Russia and tried expanding into it, it was too late.
They probably didn't gain enough traction and network effect before Facebook started its efforts to expand. Just to put that into perspective: by 2010, VKontakte had around 60M users and exceeded 100M by the end of the year. Meanwhile Facebook wasn't even fully translated into Russian, and it was this obscure thing some hipsters used as their secondary social network.
In Poland people switched to Facebook due to network effect and because it's super hard to compete with preinstalled application. Local competitor had 10M users (same as Google usage, 40M country) and lost due to preinstalled FB apps on mobile.
We still have local competition to Amazon but I guess days are numbered as they just filled for IPO.
EU is just doing a protectionist move (yes, like all countries do). The cynic in me feels this "fighting for your rights!" PR is just to deflect from the embarrassing questions of why so much brain drain to the US for better pay, and that it's easier to start companies there.
I don't think this can all be reduced to "The US tech companies are able to make more money by stealing your data!" as the tech industry is and has been so much more than ad tech.
>The cynic in me feels this "fighting for your rights!" PR is just to deflect from the embarrassing questions of why so much brain drain to the US for better pay, and that it's easier to start companies there.
It's working. Brexit probably made this easier than ever. Being negative about the EU when it comes to regulation to "protect people's rights" is often simply dismissed.
I'm dismayed at the future of the EU when it comes to computing. Not because the situation is dismal right now, but because it doesn't seem to be improving. People don't seem to care in Europe.
People in most EU countries are 1) annoyingly conservative when it comes to tech, and 2) the insane bureaucracy and regulations in most EU countries simply does not allow for the formation of a startup sphere. As a result we see 0 innovation in the tech space from Europe's side.
I believe that the hostility of EU countries towards foreigners plays also a big role in all this. If you're a non-EU citizen trying to setup a startup in an EU country, you're out of luck. For me as a non-EU citizen living in an EU country, it's just much simpler to start a startup somewhere else than here.
I understand your point of view, but also on an American side of things - if only we had this sort of regulatory clamp down as well. The congressional hearings from the CEO's of the tech giants really gave a window into how little culpability they have with regards to what they do, their business model and in general content moderation.
The precedents have been set. China has been forcing tech giants to play by their rules for years. The US is on the edge of banning TikTok and WeChat unless they have US ownership. Facebook is embroiled in legal battles in Australia. And tech giant taxes have long been an issue.
So this is set to escalate all round and the EU would be silly not to be prepared.
The Tiktok affair is a change of the rules, and the EU generally operates within sight of what is considered reasonable in the US.
The gap between China & the US's take on such issues was shrunk remarkably. EU politicians may or may not have the same reasons, but whatever the reasons, it is now OK to break up or force the sale of a tech/media giant and treat it differently because it's foreign.
Well, a fresh graduate can get paid $100k in USA, but to get 70k Euros paid annually, as an experienced developer, you have to jump through hoops with HR and management in Europe. Europe will continue to lose their talent to USA, as long as the pitiful salaries do not increase to an acceptable degree.
> Europe will continue to lose their talent to USA, as long as the pitiful salaries do not increase to an acceptable degree.
I'm not sure that's true - that Europe is losing talent to the US. COVID-19 has the US on blacklists for most of Europe. And before that Trump policies towards foreigners are not exactly encouraging to migrant workers. Meanwhile 70k Euros (82K USD) ignores that you're getting cheap, high quality healthcare, you don't have much student debt (or none at all e.g. Germany). Meanwhile Google, Facebook et al. have been opening engineering offices around Europe, presumably because it's hard to get talent over to the US / cheaper in Europe.
> you have to jump through hoops with HR and management in Europe
> Europe will continue to lose their talent to USA, as long as the pitiful salaries do not increase to an acceptable degree.
Do you have any numbers to support that claim ? Afaik h1b visa is only given to 150K people a year, sizeable proportion of them are people from Asia. Even if European developers really wanted to move to the U.S it doesn't seem that easy for them to make the move.
Political decisions always have different motivations for different people. That said, I think anti-tech-monopoly sentiment is the prime driver. Speculative, I admit... but so is the protectionist angle. I'm sure both exist. I just the protectionism is smaller.
A lot of EE politicians are genuinely alarmed by the power of these companies. They (as politicians) are also personally aware of it. They're elected on Facebook, essentially. The public shares the negative sentiment.
If there were some powerful EU competitors that could immediately benefit, I'd suspect the protectionism more.
FWIW, IDK if there are many of those embarrassing questions thrown at EU politicians regularly. I would wager that's very far down on their list of "questions I don't want to be asked." It just isn't a live political issue that most people care about, to my knowledge... regardless of whether or not it is a big issue.
> I don't think this can all be reduced to "The US tech companies are able to make more money by stealing your data!" as the tech industry is and has been so much more than ad tech.
While it can't be, the EU's ambitions on data protection are quite old; the DPD, the GDPR's ancestor, was adopted in 1995, before the consumer internet was a big deal, and ultimately derives from OECD guidelines from _1980_. Similarly, the EU has been interested in competition issues around things like supermarkets for decades; a lot of effort was put into preventing any one chain becoming the Amazon of supermarkets, so it's perhaps not unexpected that Amazon being the Amazon of, er, Amazons would be viewed with suspicion.
The stuff mentioned in the article seems to be mostly data protection (as mentioned, something the EU has been interested in for the last 30 years at least) and making it easier for people to move services (again, the EU has had an interest in this for a while, notably with telecoms and more recently banks, as well as long-standing rules around bundling).
The following is pure speculation and I haven't given it too much serious thought.
Is this just the latest form of trade protectionism? That the EU is unhappy about being the clear non-leader in tech so they're attempting to raise trade barriers such that the American leaders are forced out or become uncompetitive in the EU?
It is definitely partly that, and sadly because EU is not perceived as 'the big baddie' then not too many people will have the audacity to call out the EU for this.
The EU has found some 'actual power' in their legislative ability, and the anger among the elite particularly over taxation is being expressed here.
It's one thing the elite can agree on 'we need to get back at those bad American companies'.
But it's ultimately a losers hand, and the 'real problem' is their own ability to compete in these areas.
All of that said - the EU has actually made some decent legislation and some of these actions may very well be rational and welcome. So paradox there.
For the most part it's that Europe always considered very big companies a problem and the behavior of tech companies in the law few years has increased the perception that this was correct. So, now they adapt the existing legislative options to the modern world.
I know HN likes to beat the drum around braking up big tech, but this is absurd. This is a move right up there with protectionist policies from the US and china, and does not directly benefit consumers, as it is being framed.
That is not true. A protectionist policy, as the name suggest, is protecting people. A person is not just a consumer, a person is also a worker, a student, someone who pays taxes, someone who raises a family and children, someone who has a mental health and so on...
While it may be true that initially a break up would reduce the offering of giant tech companies and give consumers less choice of some product, in the long term they might benefit as a whole person a lot more than the little cost that has been added just to the consumer role itself.
The replacement companies might pay more tax, the might be better regulation to stop fake news or other damaging content circulating, law makers might have more influence in sanctioning companies who do not behave in an ethical way, children might get sucked less into addictive habits where their behaviour and data is being further exploited into sucking them into more damaging habits, etc.
So yes, possibly a consumer might miss out on some addictive and damaging products which initially might seem a loss, but the human as a whole is probably going to benefit magnitudes more than what they lost.
Your post makes sense, but it's the complete opposite of what commenters from the EU normally say when it's the USA implementing protectionist policies. Any time we do it, there's a bunch of finger wagging and talk about how the USA is becoming a totalitarian state like China by trying to control how or what businesses operate in our country.
EU is attacking other companies because it doesn't provide environment for new tech giants to be created.
Ironic.
Though silicon valley has an extreme appeal, it is the de facto location for tech and this has become so cultural that EU will have to provide a serious incentive to stay in the EU because business wise there is 0 resons to not go to USA.
After watching what the US did to TikTok, the EU should close down Facebook in Europe the same way. Its an out of control security threat with no benefits for the EU. It should be banned.
Like a number of other posters I think this probably is mostly motivated by protectionism, but unlike them my response is: so what? So European consumers miss out on the tax-evading, anti-democratic, addiction-pushing, misery-spreading, dystopia-creating big-brother tactics of US big tech. Oh no, what a terrible tragic loss, how will this still enormously wealthy and advanced continent with thousands of years of civilisation behind it ever cope etc. etc. etc...
Europe doesn't have that much of a directly competing industry. Also, since we're not unified in terms of political culture, most people outside of (eg) Poland wouldn't consider a Polish company to be any more local than and American one. The EU is protectionist in some regards (especially agrifood), but these are structural and foundational.
I think it's motivated by anti tech-monopoly sentiment, which has been growing everywhere in the West.
In the sense that it's protectionist, I think the "TikTok affair" is a low-key tidal shift. It essentially the US taking a position similar to China's. An Chinese entrant into US media is seen as a political and intelligence threat, like China sees western media. Also, "*why should we allow their stuff when they don't allow ours."
The EU still operates within the US' "Overton Window." It doesn't do things outside the pale of US policy norms. That window now allows social media to be treated differently.
There are many counterpoints to what you say. Why is agriculture deemed important enough to regulate it so heavily but IT isnt? Listen ,EU is far too disjointed to have one single strategy but it does harmonize the market on any sector that has strong lobbyists. Those sectors are, sadly, old money. It does harmonize banks, construction, shipping, foods, cars. It allows tons of leeway on international companies to evade taxes on its many tax havens (monaco, lux, whatever) but it somehow seems to be sensitive only on IT profits .
That's because there's nobody to lobby for IT, which is ... well chicken and egg problem. EU should allow member-states to create a stable , easy framework for tech companies to operate in EU (like ireland , cyprus, increasingly bulgaria and other countries try to do) the same way Delaware does that for the US. IT is inherently a virtual sector, and it needs this kind of constructs, not Kafkaeque VAT rules and constant charges and arbitrary taxation. This is what turns away people to greener, or just more stable pastures
> EU still operates within the US' "Overton Window.
Sort of. the north does, but eastern / southernn countries have done significant openings to china because they needed investment. They are also the countries who host the cheapest and most dynamic tech workers (who are sadly often forced to work remotely for the US)
It's not a question of importance. This just happens to be the history of the EU. I'm not saying it's good or bad.
The EU kind of started as a single agricultural market. Instead of the weird (complicated, and corrupt) protectionist arms race that existed before was gradually replaced with a single agricultural policy with protection from competition outside the block. Fishing is also a big deal, even though it is economically tiny.
Also, all the countries have an agri-food industry. Not many are likely to benefit from decreased competition vis-a-vis facebook.
Brexit/Banking stuff has been an eye-opener. On the face of it, a big chunk of the London financial market is up for grabs. It has not been a negotiating priority though. The Netherlands, and to some extent Belgium and Germany would be the likely benefactors barriers, but for most countries it would just be a minor inconvenience.
"Because more profits and taxes in Amsterdam" just isn't an operative reason for EU decisions, at least currently. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.
Regardless of dealings with China, European regulations don't tend to incorporate things that would be inconceivable in the US... at least thus far.
Breaking up or forcing the sale of a foreign media company was, until recently, out of the question. Now it's not.
It all comes down to war. Agriculture is important because when your country will be at war with another country, you might not be able to trade food. So if you can't grow your own food, you're lost. So it's important to keep some farms in your country to be able to scale if necessary.
IT was not as important until recently. At this point some things are almost as important as food. If your military infrastructure depends on some network equipment, you need to think what will happen when you'll be at war with a country that makes that equipment.
Of course it's not possible to build all equipment from sand to CPU in the country, unless that's a huge country like Russia or China. So there will be compromises. That's not the case for the food, though.
Facebook is not important. If US will be in war with EU and shuts down Facebook access, nobody will care.
The CAP isn't promoting agricultural production in the EU. it's subsidizing old inefficient methods and keeping out cheaper food from nearby countries. The sole reason why this scheme has lasted so long is because it provides free money to politicians to buy voters.
> t as important until recently
This Recently is 20 years ago. It is arguably THE sector for growth and we all know it. Let alone that it's a security issue as well, and EU could learn a lot from Israel.
It is decidedly not an anti tech sentiment that leads to this in my eyes. If I had to pinpoint it, I'd say it is a combination of these three points:
1) Europeans realised US corporations and special services won't stop spying on their allies and they will just ignore law and order
2) As the biggest single market on earth the EU has a strong leaver. A leaver which might be to the benifit of other smaller nations as well, so they feel morally obliged to use it
3) Contrary to a common image in the anglosphere the EU is not soley a economic pact, but there is a strong precence of shared values. So human rights, privacy rights of individuals, all that jazz. Not saying this is perfect or even at the level it should be, but it is more than a purely economical pact.
The idea that the EU was purely an economical alliance was a misconception that bit the UK as well during the Brexit negotiations. The UK negotiators couldn't get that there are ideas the EU isn't willing to sacrifice on the altars of commerce and capital.
I agree with the last point. On the first 2, I don't disagree, but I weight these lower than you in terms of what is driving this effort.
It's hard to know though. The way EU political culture works currently doesn't have "domestic politics" norms... which makes motivations hard to understand. That said, there is far more political attention on corporations spying or manipulating us than foreign countries spying or manipulating us.
In terms of the EU being powerful... I agree on paper. But, political culture isn't there atm. See the EU's handling of border issues: Ukraine and Belarus. There has been exactly zero "great power" MO on these. Imagine either of these if it was the US, China or Russia(1) border.
(1)You need to imagine Russia on both sides.
For good or ill, the EU doesn't have this kind of a political culture in 2020. Maybe it will. The material conditions exist. Currently though, it's a totally different beast to the US or China politically.
> The UK negotiators couldn't get that there are ideas the EU isn't willing to sacrifice on the altars of commerce and capital.
Well that's a very Brussels-centric picture that you paint, i.e., the glorious, righteous warriors of the EU leadership bravely defending Europe's morality against the terrible, beastly greed of perfidious Albion. However, from where I'm sitting it looks more like a demented quest for vengeance from an EU political leadership driven insane by the personal humiliation of losing one of the biggest members of the EU despite their best efforts and the stunning repudiation to their megalomaniacal globalist wet dream.
Maybe, maybe not. Recently, GDPR, other regulation that had wide reaching effects across EU, probably was not that great for EU businesses overall (except those that work in compliance business), yet it was adopted for the consumers sake.
Tackling social media tech certainly seems important when some post recommendation algorithm can probably decide elections. It's not like social media make information spread freely. It's directed by some algorithms for a looong time already.
I wouldn't mind EU forcing more transparency into these things.
> how will this still enormously wealthy and advanced continent
EU's GDP per capita is roughly half of that of the US. Not exactly super wealthy by any standard. Considering the slow growth all throughout the EU it's not coping too well at all.
What I mean is that most Europeans are fine, comparatively to Americans, and don't actually need to let tech giants intrude every aspect of their lives for the sake of growing their economy.
Seriously, do you think everyone would be up in arms if facebook microsoft and amazon pulled out? No, people would just shrug and move on to something else.
Even if you take the three biggest EU economies (Germany, France and Italy) you're still off by over $20k per capita vs the US (at over $60k).
And ironically out of these three Germany has the highest per capita and they're the only one to have merged with an Eastern block country.
Portugal has already fallen behind Slovenia.
The only EU countries to have anything approaching or surpassing US per capita numbers have tiny populations. In which case one might mention NY state has a per capita gdp of $85k with over 8M people.
No this doesn't tell the full picture because the gap is the same for company like germany where the GDP per capita in 2008 was 45k and now is 48k. In 2008 the US was 46k and is now 63k.
The rate that these economies are diverging is the problem. Its to the point that the 50 million americans in horrid proverty are richer than the middle class in countries like spain, italy, greece.
GDP per capita isn't that insightful for this topic because it doesn't tell whether disposable income actually grew. It could also be the case that i.e. only the top 1% household income grew.
Median household income is a better metric to get a feeling for the live of the actual, average citizen. Median personal income in the EU grew 18.5% from 2008 to 2018 and 8.7% in the US. (It grew more in 2019 but I couldn't find the corresponding EU data for 2019).
The divergence from GDP per capita means most people didn't receive the growth in productivity.
Yeh in the EU in general it grew but that doesn't actually answer you first questions and it obfuscates the growing difference. This is because the EU as a whole because of the easter bloc country was growing from a much much smaller number.
But if you actually look at disposable income germany has nearly 10k less than the US. Thats not even to mention places like greece, Portugal, and spain.
German median personal income grew by 21% from 2008 to 2018, as per my original link.
My overall point was that GDP per capita growth does not relate to income of actual people, though.
The difference between both metrics means that mostly only inequality grew in the US from 2008 to 2018.
I think you looked at mean income in the wikipedia table, not median income. Median income is "only" 7k less in Germany than the US. The difference between mean and median essentially tells the same story: GDP growths only landed in the upper few percent housholds.
Look at China's example, their GDP per capita increased by 300% in the same time span. Suddenly they started being seen as a threat, companies banned, broken up, forced to be sold. This move is probably motivated partly by similar reasons and is indirectly supported by the fact that the US considered this a viable strategy.
The other reason this is being considered is the deep distrust of US tech companies. For the average literate European citizen, US tech companies probably look just as bad as Chinese companies look for the average literate US citizen. Again this is indirectly supported by US reacting in the exact same way towards the party they distrust.
This being said I don't think this will pass and it certainly won't be put to use any time soon. There are still to many strings attached from the US to European countries, economies, and people. The purpose of all that spying and infiltrating everyone is to keep both allies and enemies in check. But recent US moves and changing of times have created some very obvious cracks that won't get mended too easily.
Hey, could you please not post flamewar comments to HN? You've got good points here, but unfortunately the nastiness of the last sentence overrides them.
Also, please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
Exactly this and its getting father behind. In 2008 it was basically the same. In the next 10 years It could be 3x-4x the times of Europe. If you were a smart, educated, with ambitious why would you ever stay there.
GDP only tells a very particular story - there's still vast wealth within Europe/EU. If you disagree, please travel around the swankier parts of the continent and then come back and tell me how poverty-stricken it is. It's also worth pointing out that a good part of US GDP is down to its reserve currency status, and there's evidence that this will not remain unchallenged over time.
I think that's possibly a bit cynical; 50 years ago the US competition regulators would probably have been taking a good hard look at the tech quasi-monopolies, but these days the EC is generally somewhat more aggressive on anti-monopoly/cartel stuff.
Free trade goes both ways. European companies make a fortune selling to Americans, so if EU blocks American companies from operating there retaliation will follow. It would be a lose lose for everyone because free trade is a non zero sum net positive activity, and throwing it out of the window for nationalistic reasons can only be harmful to all parties involved.
The problem is its going to make the US also justify protectionist policy. Europes GDP growth has been stale for years. IDK if their citizen would be ok with starting trade wars with allies only wanting equal market access
Well, there's a pretty good debate to be had about the worth of GDP. It's perfectly possible to have huge GDP and a miserable majority, and vice versa.
There’s this growing reputation that’s Europe has broadly lost the tech race to the US and Asia and so now it’s seeking to be the de facto world regulator of tech as some sort of consolation prize to gain global influence. Not entirely fair, but also not entirely inaccurate either.
The EU has lots of tech, just less of the tech that's overvalued (like ad-tech, social networks, ride sharing systems). Perhaps the EU needs better PR so they can attract more investors.
Germany has lost the race for renewable energy against China, and it is losing the race for EVs against both the US and China. Two tech sectors that will generate immense wealth. Around 30% of Germany's GDP depends on the automotive market. There are whole factories in Germany that design parts that will soon be completely obsolete, and they're not adjusting any of their strategies. The EU has most definitely lost the tech race.
Some of this may be reasonable, but many of tech regulation laws do not help the customers, and they would never pass in a referendum.
On the bright side maybe this kind of thing will help tech giants to understand that they must disrupt the harmful bureaucracy that infects governments all over the world. We already have technology to make direct/liquid democracy possible [1] [2], and a small push from a company like Facebook or Telegram can help to fundamentally change the way politics works, and the type of people it attracts.
> Activities that could lead to tougher sanctions include companies preventing users from switching platforms or forcing customers to use only one service, he added.
Rather than breaking up the US companies, a more realistic approach would be to require that users on US social networks be able to friend/follow people on competing social networks, using open standards (i.e. the Fediverse).
If necessary, the regulation could be limited to just EU-based user accounts on US social networks, and any account on an EU-based and registered competing social network. That would go some way towards addressing the security/spam concerns that US social networks might raise, as well as adding an onerous bureaucratic process which incumbents can capture, and give the EU politicians the sense of media control that they want.
> Rather than breaking up the US companies, a more realistic approach would be to require that users on US social networks be able to friend/follow people on competing social networks, using open standards (i.e. the Fediverse).
I think this attacks the problem from the wrong perspective. I think a more realistic approach would be to require institutions which use public funds (government entities, community groups, schools, libraries, et cetera) to adopt these open standards themselves and to bootstrap their necessary infrastructure to broadcast messages into this new platform.
Everyone in the public sector has a Twitter account, a Facebook account, an Instagram account, ad infinitum, these public organizations need to be mandated to build out their own social infra (or to buy from a competent provider exposing these services in the same way they'd buy email and web hosting).
99 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadThis is a step in the right direction however. It's not possible to create a tech sector when all your data passes through USA, NSA and other 3 letter entities. China did it, Russia partly did it. The US is doing it now. I hope the EU acts swiftly to build a moat to stop haemorraging human and capital resources to the US. There is plenty of talent to support a thriving euro- and world-class tech ecosystem, but it needs to be strategically protected, the same way the US has done to date
The language barrier is a HUGE problem for EU businesses. It's the main reason why online services grow 100x slower in the "European Union" compared to the same service being offered in the US, where a "state's language" makes no difference, because it's the same everywhere.
Because there isn't such "high scalability potential" as it is in the US, due to the language barrier, you also don't see as many investors throwing millions of euro at "ideas with potential".
b) The EU has exactly as much power as their member states (which are sovereign, see Brexit) give her. And the members have decided to not give her that particular ability.
Despite what you might read on the Internet the EU is NOT the United States of Europe. It (or a successor) may be one day, but that day is at least a century away.
Other European countries don't have that history.
That aside, there's a much bigger problem: sovereignty. How many Europeans would just accept a foreign language being made mandatory in their country? Eastern Europe still remembers Russification. We also have the example of French and its spread in France. I'm afraid that this kind of a rule would threaten the entire European Union project.
Some countries are way, way better than others at teaching English. You can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_English_Proficiency_Index.
Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway are at the top with very high proficiency. France is 31st and is famously terrible at teaching English. Spain is 35th, Italy 36th. So it seems to be possible to have good English from school when done correctly.
> How many Europeans would just accept a foreign language being made mandatory in their country?
Yep, almost nobody would accept this, that's for sure. People in France are already angry toward Ursula von der Leyen because she didn't speak enough French during the recent State of the Union... I personally don't care that much about my own native language and would love to see English be used instead, but that's clearly not the way others see it.
That's my personal experience at least.
There are however many things the EU could work on that would help: - common market for financial financial services (why does a FinTech company have to register in every country it wants to do business in?) - common market for media rights (why do I have different rules to license a song or movie in different countries? We don’t need 27 iTunes Stores) - common market for telecommunication (ISPs and mobile operators still function independently even if they share a brand) - common labor market - make it easier to hire across borders (my employer is having a tough time hiring regional employees as we have to get set up in every country with a legal entity and register for taxes, social security)
It’s also important to acknowledge how far Europe has gotten. The common Customs area, the Euro, SEPA, Schengen all help make doing business in Europe across countries a lot easier. The also help make talent more mobile as it’s easier to move across borders.
Most educated Europeans already speak English as a second (or third, fourth, …) language, but many still prefer to be spoken to in their first language (historically often because they don’t speak English that well, but that already has been slowly changing for decades)
(Current EU VAT rules definitely suck for small multi-nation startups, but the rule as I understand it is “pay VAT where you customers are” which brings me back to the nations themselves rather than the supernational trading block).
You are in the UK. You create knitting patterns that you sell online. Somebody from Latvia wants to purchase your knitting pattern. However, you don't have any other customers from Latvia. You're better off not selling to that customer to avoid the paperwork for VAT to Latvia. This is a digital product that can be copied at nearly no cost.
Politicians saw the light at some point and implemented a minimum threshold for VAT for these kinds of payments. I still cannot understand why this took years.
From 2015: https://euobserver.com/opinion/129961
Sorry, but I'm still salty about it.
Examples? The only thing you might argue is privacy laws and there we could be thankful to the EU for being the only trading block that's made some (perhaps futile) effort to protect their civilians rights.
First, why can't you "create a tech sector when all your data passes through USA..."? What does one have to do with the other? Are you talking about espionage? If so, is there any evidence that the EU tech sector has been stifled because of US government espionage?
Also, this article is about data collection and disinformation. What does that have to do with "build[ing] a moat to stop haemorraging human and capital resources to the US" ?? And, anyways, what exactly has the US done, at a policy / regulatory level to "strategically protect" this?
Other sectors have been, and there's no reason tech would be immune to this. Also, it's only logical that attempts to create an EU tech sector, therefore threatening the US dominance, would be met with attempts to stiffle it similar to the ones below.
>In 1999, Enercon, a German company and leading manufacturer of wind energy equipment, developed a breakthrough generator for wind turbines. After applying for a US patent, it had learned that Kenetech, an American rival, had submitted an almost identical patent application shortly before. By the statement of a former NSA employee, it was later discovered that the NSA had secretly intercepted and monitored Enercon's data communications and conference calls and passed information regarding the new generator to Kenetech.
>In the early 1990s, the US National Security Agency intercepted the communications between the European aerospace company Airbus and the Saudi Arabian national airline. In 1994, Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia after the NSA, acting as a whistleblower, reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[65] As a result, the American aerospace company McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) won the multibillion-dollar contract instead of Airbus.
>The American defense contractor Raytheon won a US$1.3 billion contract with the Government of Brazil to monitor the Amazon rainforest after the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), acting as a whistleblower, reported that Raytheon's French competitor Thomson-Alcatel had been paying bribes to get the contract.
>In order to boost America's position in trade negotiations with the then Japanese Trade Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, in 1995 the CIA eavesdropped on the conversations between Japanese bureaucrats and executives of car manufacturers Toyota and Nissan.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
You can argue that the bribing cases make the US government the "good guy", but I can safely say that the NSA/CIA would not leverage it's espionage capabilites to subvert a US companies deals/operations.
And remember, these are only the cases that we know about.
That means US companies are orders of magnitude easier to scale up to behemoths. In fact, if an EU tech company wants to grow really big, it is better off trying to conquer the US (like spotify).
There is no fix for this. Even if the EU managed to take away the many regulatory differences between member nations and created a funding source equal to silicon valley, and managed to keep the US tech giants at bay, the EU tech industry will never rival that of the US.
IMHO this is a good thing. Megacorporations are an economic antipattern. It is better to have a million small businesses serving their local market than a few giants covering the continent.
It's not as if europeans learn about europe when they are on US social media anyway. Most of what they hear is about US and Trump, not their local stuff. That hasn't prevented Twitter and FB or ebay or whatever to become huge in europe. Besides far too many europeans do their work in English, hell even Brussels operates in english apart from some public appearances. I ve certainly never used another language in any EU project i joined.
Russian government had no part in this. It's just the fact that US companies didn't consider Russia a worthy market back then. So, naturally, we've had our own companies like VKontakte and Yandex copy what the US counterparts had to offer, and when Facebook and Google noticed Russia and tried expanding into it, it was too late.
There were competing social networks in europe and UK as well, big names. Why are those in the graveyard though?
We still have local competition to Amazon but I guess days are numbered as they just filled for IPO.
I don't think this can all be reduced to "The US tech companies are able to make more money by stealing your data!" as the tech industry is and has been so much more than ad tech.
It's working. Brexit probably made this easier than ever. Being negative about the EU when it comes to regulation to "protect people's rights" is often simply dismissed.
I'm dismayed at the future of the EU when it comes to computing. Not because the situation is dismal right now, but because it doesn't seem to be improving. People don't seem to care in Europe.
I believe that the hostility of EU countries towards foreigners plays also a big role in all this. If you're a non-EU citizen trying to setup a startup in an EU country, you're out of luck. For me as a non-EU citizen living in an EU country, it's just much simpler to start a startup somewhere else than here.
So this is set to escalate all round and the EU would be silly not to be prepared.
The Tiktok affair is a change of the rules, and the EU generally operates within sight of what is considered reasonable in the US.
The gap between China & the US's take on such issues was shrunk remarkably. EU politicians may or may not have the same reasons, but whatever the reasons, it is now OK to break up or force the sale of a tech/media giant and treat it differently because it's foreign.
I'm not sure that's true - that Europe is losing talent to the US. COVID-19 has the US on blacklists for most of Europe. And before that Trump policies towards foreigners are not exactly encouraging to migrant workers. Meanwhile 70k Euros (82K USD) ignores that you're getting cheap, high quality healthcare, you don't have much student debt (or none at all e.g. Germany). Meanwhile Google, Facebook et al. have been opening engineering offices around Europe, presumably because it's hard to get talent over to the US / cheaper in Europe.
> you have to jump through hoops with HR and management in Europe
What hoops are these?
In the life of a big-tech worker this is a rounding error.
Do you have any numbers to support that claim ? Afaik h1b visa is only given to 150K people a year, sizeable proportion of them are people from Asia. Even if European developers really wanted to move to the U.S it doesn't seem that easy for them to make the move.
Might become Canada rather than USA. Better quality of life there, and doesn't seem to have the "treat foreigners like a*holes" mentality.
Also, the US losing talent to Canada for the same reasons.
A lot of EE politicians are genuinely alarmed by the power of these companies. They (as politicians) are also personally aware of it. They're elected on Facebook, essentially. The public shares the negative sentiment.
If there were some powerful EU competitors that could immediately benefit, I'd suspect the protectionism more.
FWIW, IDK if there are many of those embarrassing questions thrown at EU politicians regularly. I would wager that's very far down on their list of "questions I don't want to be asked." It just isn't a live political issue that most people care about, to my knowledge... regardless of whether or not it is a big issue.
While it can't be, the EU's ambitions on data protection are quite old; the DPD, the GDPR's ancestor, was adopted in 1995, before the consumer internet was a big deal, and ultimately derives from OECD guidelines from _1980_. Similarly, the EU has been interested in competition issues around things like supermarkets for decades; a lot of effort was put into preventing any one chain becoming the Amazon of supermarkets, so it's perhaps not unexpected that Amazon being the Amazon of, er, Amazons would be viewed with suspicion.
The stuff mentioned in the article seems to be mostly data protection (as mentioned, something the EU has been interested in for the last 30 years at least) and making it easier for people to move services (again, the EU has had an interest in this for a while, notably with telecoms and more recently banks, as well as long-standing rules around bundling).
Honestly, I think the headline is a bit alarmist.
Is this just the latest form of trade protectionism? That the EU is unhappy about being the clear non-leader in tech so they're attempting to raise trade barriers such that the American leaders are forced out or become uncompetitive in the EU?
The EU has found some 'actual power' in their legislative ability, and the anger among the elite particularly over taxation is being expressed here.
It's one thing the elite can agree on 'we need to get back at those bad American companies'.
But it's ultimately a losers hand, and the 'real problem' is their own ability to compete in these areas.
All of that said - the EU has actually made some decent legislation and some of these actions may very well be rational and welcome. So paradox there.
While it may be true that initially a break up would reduce the offering of giant tech companies and give consumers less choice of some product, in the long term they might benefit as a whole person a lot more than the little cost that has been added just to the consumer role itself.
The replacement companies might pay more tax, the might be better regulation to stop fake news or other damaging content circulating, law makers might have more influence in sanctioning companies who do not behave in an ethical way, children might get sucked less into addictive habits where their behaviour and data is being further exploited into sucking them into more damaging habits, etc.
So yes, possibly a consumer might miss out on some addictive and damaging products which initially might seem a loss, but the human as a whole is probably going to benefit magnitudes more than what they lost.
Ironic.
Though silicon valley has an extreme appeal, it is the de facto location for tech and this has become so cultural that EU will have to provide a serious incentive to stay in the EU because business wise there is 0 resons to not go to USA.
Europe doesn't have that much of a directly competing industry. Also, since we're not unified in terms of political culture, most people outside of (eg) Poland wouldn't consider a Polish company to be any more local than and American one. The EU is protectionist in some regards (especially agrifood), but these are structural and foundational.
I think it's motivated by anti tech-monopoly sentiment, which has been growing everywhere in the West.
In the sense that it's protectionist, I think the "TikTok affair" is a low-key tidal shift. It essentially the US taking a position similar to China's. An Chinese entrant into US media is seen as a political and intelligence threat, like China sees western media. Also, "*why should we allow their stuff when they don't allow ours."
The EU still operates within the US' "Overton Window." It doesn't do things outside the pale of US policy norms. That window now allows social media to be treated differently.
That's because there's nobody to lobby for IT, which is ... well chicken and egg problem. EU should allow member-states to create a stable , easy framework for tech companies to operate in EU (like ireland , cyprus, increasingly bulgaria and other countries try to do) the same way Delaware does that for the US. IT is inherently a virtual sector, and it needs this kind of constructs, not Kafkaeque VAT rules and constant charges and arbitrary taxation. This is what turns away people to greener, or just more stable pastures
> EU still operates within the US' "Overton Window.
Sort of. the north does, but eastern / southernn countries have done significant openings to china because they needed investment. They are also the countries who host the cheapest and most dynamic tech workers (who are sadly often forced to work remotely for the US)
The EU kind of started as a single agricultural market. Instead of the weird (complicated, and corrupt) protectionist arms race that existed before was gradually replaced with a single agricultural policy with protection from competition outside the block. Fishing is also a big deal, even though it is economically tiny.
Also, all the countries have an agri-food industry. Not many are likely to benefit from decreased competition vis-a-vis facebook.
Brexit/Banking stuff has been an eye-opener. On the face of it, a big chunk of the London financial market is up for grabs. It has not been a negotiating priority though. The Netherlands, and to some extent Belgium and Germany would be the likely benefactors barriers, but for most countries it would just be a minor inconvenience.
"Because more profits and taxes in Amsterdam" just isn't an operative reason for EU decisions, at least currently. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.
Regardless of dealings with China, European regulations don't tend to incorporate things that would be inconceivable in the US... at least thus far.
Breaking up or forcing the sale of a foreign media company was, until recently, out of the question. Now it's not.
Totally agree to that. I think a lot of people who supported the ban here have no idea of what Pandora's box they opened.
IT was not as important until recently. At this point some things are almost as important as food. If your military infrastructure depends on some network equipment, you need to think what will happen when you'll be at war with a country that makes that equipment.
Of course it's not possible to build all equipment from sand to CPU in the country, unless that's a huge country like Russia or China. So there will be compromises. That's not the case for the food, though.
Facebook is not important. If US will be in war with EU and shuts down Facebook access, nobody will care.
> t as important until recently
This Recently is 20 years ago. It is arguably THE sector for growth and we all know it. Let alone that it's a security issue as well, and EU could learn a lot from Israel.
1) Europeans realised US corporations and special services won't stop spying on their allies and they will just ignore law and order
2) As the biggest single market on earth the EU has a strong leaver. A leaver which might be to the benifit of other smaller nations as well, so they feel morally obliged to use it
3) Contrary to a common image in the anglosphere the EU is not soley a economic pact, but there is a strong precence of shared values. So human rights, privacy rights of individuals, all that jazz. Not saying this is perfect or even at the level it should be, but it is more than a purely economical pact.
The idea that the EU was purely an economical alliance was a misconception that bit the UK as well during the Brexit negotiations. The UK negotiators couldn't get that there are ideas the EU isn't willing to sacrifice on the altars of commerce and capital.
It's hard to know though. The way EU political culture works currently doesn't have "domestic politics" norms... which makes motivations hard to understand. That said, there is far more political attention on corporations spying or manipulating us than foreign countries spying or manipulating us.
In terms of the EU being powerful... I agree on paper. But, political culture isn't there atm. See the EU's handling of border issues: Ukraine and Belarus. There has been exactly zero "great power" MO on these. Imagine either of these if it was the US, China or Russia(1) border.
(1)You need to imagine Russia on both sides.
For good or ill, the EU doesn't have this kind of a political culture in 2020. Maybe it will. The material conditions exist. Currently though, it's a totally different beast to the US or China politically.
Well that's a very Brussels-centric picture that you paint, i.e., the glorious, righteous warriors of the EU leadership bravely defending Europe's morality against the terrible, beastly greed of perfidious Albion. However, from where I'm sitting it looks more like a demented quest for vengeance from an EU political leadership driven insane by the personal humiliation of losing one of the biggest members of the EU despite their best efforts and the stunning repudiation to their megalomaniacal globalist wet dream.
Tackling social media tech certainly seems important when some post recommendation algorithm can probably decide elections. It's not like social media make information spread freely. It's directed by some algorithms for a looong time already.
I wouldn't mind EU forcing more transparency into these things.
EU's GDP per capita is roughly half of that of the US. Not exactly super wealthy by any standard. Considering the slow growth all throughout the EU it's not coping too well at all.
1. Much of the gap is due to former Eastern-bloc countries
2. 50 million of Americans live in horrid poverty
I guess it's hard to get the full picture when you get a cushy six-figure tech job in the Bay area.
Seriously, do you think everyone would be up in arms if facebook microsoft and amazon pulled out? No, people would just shrug and move on to something else.
And ironically out of these three Germany has the highest per capita and they're the only one to have merged with an Eastern block country.
Portugal has already fallen behind Slovenia.
The only EU countries to have anything approaching or surpassing US per capita numbers have tiny populations. In which case one might mention NY state has a per capita gdp of $85k with over 8M people.
Alabama: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/AL/BZA210218
EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Median_equivalen...
The rate that these economies are diverging is the problem. Its to the point that the 50 million americans in horrid proverty are richer than the middle class in countries like spain, italy, greece.
Median household income is a better metric to get a feeling for the live of the actual, average citizen. Median personal income in the EU grew 18.5% from 2008 to 2018 and 8.7% in the US. (It grew more in 2019 but I couldn't find the corresponding EU data for 2019).
The divergence from GDP per capita means most people didn't receive the growth in productivity.
US: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
EU: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableActi...
But if you actually look at disposable income germany has nearly 10k less than the US. Thats not even to mention places like greece, Portugal, and spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
My overall point was that GDP per capita growth does not relate to income of actual people, though.
The difference between both metrics means that mostly only inequality grew in the US from 2008 to 2018.
I think you looked at mean income in the wikipedia table, not median income. Median income is "only" 7k less in Germany than the US. The difference between mean and median essentially tells the same story: GDP growths only landed in the upper few percent housholds.
The other reason this is being considered is the deep distrust of US tech companies. For the average literate European citizen, US tech companies probably look just as bad as Chinese companies look for the average literate US citizen. Again this is indirectly supported by US reacting in the exact same way towards the party they distrust.
This being said I don't think this will pass and it certainly won't be put to use any time soon. There are still to many strings attached from the US to European countries, economies, and people. The purpose of all that spying and infiltrating everyone is to keep both allies and enemies in check. But recent US moves and changing of times have created some very obvious cracks that won't get mended too easily.
Hilarious!
Lol do people really believe that?
Also, please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
On the bright side maybe this kind of thing will help tech giants to understand that they must disrupt the harmful bureaucracy that infects governments all over the world. We already have technology to make direct/liquid democracy possible [1] [2], and a small push from a company like Facebook or Telegram can help to fundamentally change the way politics works, and the type of people it attracts.
[1] https://github.com/voteflux [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
Decentralize everything and fire all those useless eaters!
Rather than breaking up the US companies, a more realistic approach would be to require that users on US social networks be able to friend/follow people on competing social networks, using open standards (i.e. the Fediverse).
If necessary, the regulation could be limited to just EU-based user accounts on US social networks, and any account on an EU-based and registered competing social network. That would go some way towards addressing the security/spam concerns that US social networks might raise, as well as adding an onerous bureaucratic process which incumbents can capture, and give the EU politicians the sense of media control that they want.
I think this attacks the problem from the wrong perspective. I think a more realistic approach would be to require institutions which use public funds (government entities, community groups, schools, libraries, et cetera) to adopt these open standards themselves and to bootstrap their necessary infrastructure to broadcast messages into this new platform.
Everyone in the public sector has a Twitter account, a Facebook account, an Instagram account, ad infinitum, these public organizations need to be mandated to build out their own social infra (or to buy from a competent provider exposing these services in the same way they'd buy email and web hosting).