EU will go easy with Apple, Facebook punishment to avoid Trump’s wrath

Lawbreaking under DMA to be punished—but not too severely.

See full article...

 

[gorman]

The US has a massive trade deficit with the EU in physical goods which is mostly balanced by a massive surplus in digital services. The EU has been squeezing those digital industries, and can hardly be surprised to discover that it has provoked a reaction. The surprise if anything is it took so long. Biden's failure to robustly defend US economic interests probably didn't help Harris' electoral chances.

As you say, in the realm of Realpolitik the EU is free to treat US firms as badly as they like and if they don't like it the US firms can just leave, but in that exact same realm the US firms are free to complain to the US government which is free to treat EU firms as badly as they like and if the EU firms don't like it ....

You missed the part where US companies are breaking EU's laws and EU's companies are not breaking US laws.

Was that intentional?

 

[gorman]

Who is going to want to run a Twitter or Facebook alternative if they aren’t allowed to sell targeted ads or offer a subscription to opt out of tracking, and can only rely on untargeted ads as its sole source of revenue?

You forget that there was a time when untargeted ads were the only kind of ads companies had available to promote their products/services. You targeted by choosing the media you ran the ad on. Was it less efficient? It was.

But it didn't trample people's privacy and rights by design. If NO targeted ads in the sense that we have adopted now existed anymore, do you think companies suddenly would stop running ads?

 

[Cloudgazer]

You missed the part where US companies are breaking EU's laws and EU's companies are not breaking US laws.

Was that intentional?

Breaking a law that the EU passed a hot minute ago specifically targetting US firms you mean?

Carefully constructed so that it would scarcely apply to EU firms but would require massive and complicated compliance operations for US ones? Written so that nobody can even dependably say what would or wouldn't be breaking it?

That law?

So if the US passed a law which was carefully drawn to only impact EU firms which would then be breaking it, then that would mean that the US could justifiably go after said EU firms? Then it would all be cushty?

If the argument is one of justice then the DMA is a bad law.
If the argument is one of realpolitik then what's sauce for the goose is inevitably going to be sauce for the gander.

It will be interesting to see, a decade from now, if Arsians are so sanguine about the DMA. Right now it's popular as many people think that big tech firms are too powerful. But when big tech firms are forced to open up their systems to allow little tech firms to do all the bad things that you thought big tech was doing, and with fewer repercussions ... well then perhaps there may be some second thoughts.

Heck we're already seeing that one of the major demanders on Apple that it open up services on iOS is Meta. Do you really think that an iOS that has been redesigned to better serve Meta is going to be better for iOS users? I'm sure the EU will solve all the privacy issues of the DMA by adding more click throughs, after all they're masters of UI design over in Brussels/Strasbourg (depending on the time of year)

 

[abazigal]

You forget that there was a time when untargeted ads were the only kind of ads companies had available to promote their products/services. You targeted by choosing the media you ran the ad on. Was it less efficient? It was.

But it didn't trample people's privacy and rights by design. If NO targeted ads in the sense that we have adopted now existed anymore, do you think companies suddenly would stop running ads?

I feel that these companies would definitely have found another way to monetise their services.

Take YouTube for example. I don't want ads, and I am able and willing to pay for Youtube Premium. I wish it could be cheaper, but it is what it is, because I value my time more. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people in the EU who don't want tracking or ads to be ready to pay for it (similar to Twitter Blue). How much a reasonable monthly rate is certainly debatable, but I simply cannot agree with the EU outright dictating that they be allowed to serve only untargeted ads which clearly make far less money for everybody, and are feasible only for a small number of brands that are more utilitarian and have mass appeal (like Apple, ironically enough).

I get what the EU is trying to do - have its cake and eat it too. It clearly wants US tech companies to continue operating in the EU, while at the same time betting that their market is too lucrative to exit, and that they will capitulate however onerous and unreasonable the terms. In a sense, the money that Facebook makes from users in say, the US and elsewhere around the world, would effectively be subsidising the users in the EU.

Perhaps it is time for these companies to start pulling out of the EU and maybe we can finally answer the question of just who needs whom more. Right now, it just feels like a giant game of chicken, with each side waiting to see who blinks first.

 

[dzid]

I feel that these companies would definitely have found another way to monetise their services.

Take YouTube for example. I don't want ads, and I am able and willing to pay for Youtube Premium. I wish it could be cheaper, but it is what it is, because I value my time more. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people in the EU who don't want tracking or ads to be ready to pay for it (similar to Twitter Blue). How much a reasonable monthly rate is certainly debatable, but I simply cannot agree with the EU outright dictating that they be allowed to serve only untargeted ads which clearly make far less money for everybody, and are feasible only for a small number of brands that are more utilitarian and have mass appeal (like Apple, ironically enough).

I get what the EU is trying to do - have its cake and eat it too. It clearly wants US tech companies to continue operating in the EU, while at the same time betting that their market is too lucrative to exit, and that they will capitulate however onerous and unreasonable the terms. In a sense, the money that Facebook makes from users in say, the US and elsewhere around the world, would effectively be subsidising the users in the EU.

Perhaps it is time for these companies to start pulling out of the EU and maybe we can finally answer the question of just who needs whom more. Right now, it just feels like a giant game of chicken, with each side waiting to see who blinks first.

As I said in my edit to my previous reply, there could be other options that users could opt into if they wanted to see specific ads (while still having their private info protected by law) in lieu of a subscription fee, as just one example. That would, by design, comply with regulations whose intent is to protect users and support commerce.

Of course, someone would have to design that framework, test and document it, while ensuring they get paid for all that hard work from companies wanting to build apps atop it. Last I heard, many of the folks who were doing that as a shared endeavor out of a belief that it would be a transformative and beneficial technology.... well, they could see the impending dumpster fire that Twitter and Facebook would be a few years down the road.

I don't think anyone will be doing that work for free these days. No reason it can't be done and comply with regulations. Some companies just want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Cloudgazer]

As I said in my edit to my previous reply, there could be other options that users could opt into if they wanted to see specific ads (while still having their private info protected by law) in lieu of a subscription fee, as just one example. That would, by design, comply with regulations whose intent is to protect users and support commerce.

The regulations aren't intended to protect users, they're intended to hurt Facebook and Google. If they were intended to protect users they would apply to all advertising based monetized businesses.

But that would disadvantage Spotify.

 

[dzid]

The regulations aren't intended to protect users, they're intended to hurt Facebook and Google. If they were intended to protect users they would apply to all advertising based monetized businesses.

But that would disadvantage Spotify.

Well, as far as I know, Spotify isn't pushing far-right political parties or trying to destabilize democratic countries. And since the system I described doesn't actually exist for the reasons I described, the regulations aren't tailored to that, they address what exists now.

 

[Cloudgazer]

Well, as far as I know, Spotify isn't pushing far-right political parties

As far as I know neither is Meta or Google. Not that's it illegal to push far right political parties, if the party is legal then media firms can certainly support them, within certain very wide limits beyond which it would be an illegal campaign contribution.

or trying to destabilize democratic countries.

Is Meta? Or Google? They might be doing that by accident but nobody has seriously accused either of them as wanting to destroy democracy.

And since the system I described doesn't actually exist for the reasons I described, the regulations aren't tailored to that, they address what exists now.

The rules about targeted ads which apply only to a handful of companies vs the rules which actually apply against misinformation that apply to all large online platforms you mean?

Yes - that actually does include spotify. So congrats, you made exactly my point for me. When the EU has a serious policy aim they create rules that apply to everybody. When the EU doesn't do that, it says a lot about how serious their policy aims are.

 

[gorman]

Breaking a law that the EU passed a hot minute ago specifically targetting US firms you mean?

Carefully constructed so that it would scarcely apply to EU firms but would require massive and complicated compliance operations for US ones? Written so that nobody can even dependably say what would or wouldn't be breaking it?

That law?

Sure, let's cry for trillion dollars companies and their armies of private lawyers that find impossible to operate with such a badly written law.

It's not as if they willfully have tried to get away with all sorts of malicious behavior toward users for the past 15 years. No. It's the law that was written by evil men and women that wanted to milk them for money.

Were you a fan of Cambridge Analytica? I was not. That, for me, was and is enough to demand that private companies get less and less personal information on people.

You see all this only through the lens of money, as if damage to democratic society did not matter.

 

[Cloudgazer]

Sure, let's cry for trillion dollars companies and their armies of private lawyers that find impossible to operate with such a badly written law.

So what's your problem then? The US is threatening EU billion dollar firms with their armies of private lawyers. You should be unbothered.

It's not as if they willfully have tried to get away with all sorts of malicious behavior toward users for the past 15 years. No. It's the law that was written by evil men and women that wanted to milk them for money.

I'm not sure what 'evil' behaviour you think the DMA prohibits.

Were you a fan of Cambridge Analytica? I was not. That, for me, was and is enough to demand that private companies get less and less personal information on people.

Cambridge Analytica, an EU firm that wouldn't have come close to coming under the terms of the DMA? That one? That's your argument for why US firms are 'evil', the DMA is a good law. I guess the US needs laws against evil EU firms based on that logic!

You see all this only through the lens of money, as if damage to democratic society did not matter.

Because the DMA is all about money. The DSA is the act that is focused on protecting civil society from big tech. Different law.
The DMA is about getting EU firms a share of the pie.

 

[gorman]

Cambridge Analytica, an EU firm that wouldn't have come close to coming under the terms of the DMA? That one? That's your argument for why US firms are 'evil', the DMA is a good law. I guess the US needs laws against evil EU firms based on that logic!

Nope, the scandal that goes under the same name that happened due to boundless data collection by Facebook. But I see you're not willing to engage in a discussion I'd be interested in, so it's all good. Enjoy Trump and his methods. I think they'll lead the world to a worse place but YMMV.
Bye.

 

[raxx7]

Perhaps it is time for these companies to start pulling out of the EU and maybe we can finally answer the question of just who needs whom more. Right now, it just feels like a giant game of chicken, with each side waiting to see who blinks first.

The fact that they haven't should tell you all you need to know:
Even with the pesky requirements and the risk of massive fines, it's more profitable for them to be in the EU than not.

 

[abazigal]

The fact that they haven't should tell you all you need to know:
Even with the pesky requirements and the risk of massive fines, it's more profitable for them to be in the EU than not.

What Apple will likely end up doing is to try and get away with making as few concessions as possible while still (technically) adhering to the demands of the DMA. While we are on this topic, does anyone know how third party app stores are taking off in the EU? I don't seem to have heard much progress about them of late, except for Riley Testut getting a massive source of funding from Tim Sweeney.

 

[Cloudgazer]

Nope, the scandal that goes under the same name that happened due to boundless data collection by Facebook. But I see you're not willing to engage in a discussion I'd be interested in, so it's all good. Enjoy Trump and his methods. I think they'll lead the world to a worse place but YMMV.
Bye.

You don't actually know anything about it bar the name do you? Perhaps you should at least read the wiki before opining with such confidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

TL/DR? Cambridge Analytica didn't get private data from Facebook - they used Facebook as a platform on which to capture private data by posing as academic researchers. What data they did get from Facebook itself was fundamental to how Facebook works -ie the social graph - and hardly something that could be considered 'boundless data collection by Facebook.

In fact far from the EU being incensed by that ... well have you read the DMA? It essentially enshrines a requirement on platforms to share private user information with third parties when users consent. If Facebook refused to allow a future Cambridge Analytica to get the social graph of all the users who willingly participated they would likely be in violation of the DMA, and you would want to see them heavily fined for their temerity.

Facebook are a horrible firm with some very shady practices, but Cambridge Analytica was an entirely home grown privacy violation within the EU.

But sure, being informed about what actually happened means I'm the one 'not willing to engage in a discussion you'd be interested in', because naturally you're only interested in the facts when they support your existing beliefs. Kinda like a Trump voter really eh?

 

[Matthew J.]

Wow. I really didn't think they were going to blink on this one.

 

[JMTronicHobbyist]

If that was meant as a joke, I give it a 4/10 for lack of originality. If that was meant as a serious argument, well, I just hope you'll someday escape the alternate reality you appear to be living in

Umm, but then won't they be in our reality? Do we want them here?

 

[King_V]

Ugh, coming back to this, as an American, I just have to scream into the wind here and say "please, please DO NOT go easy on them." Let Trump try to call a legal fine a "tax" all he wants to rile the base, let him make threats, empty or not. Just do NOT let Trump's threats influence how the law is applied. Do NOT go easy on these American companies just because the Orange Shitbag yelled some incoherent threats.

Following up on this, I can't say for Facebook, but Apple will be hurt by the Orange Shitbag's tariffs. So, isn't Trump doing exactly the thing he's raging against in his tantrum? Somehow, his tariff is NOT a huge tax on Apple, but forcing them to pay fines for their crimes is?

I know, I know, it almost physically hurts the brain to see these completely imbecilic double-standards/hypocrisy.

 

[The Wonderful Wizard]

Sorry - are you seriously suggesting that every nation needs its own national alternative to SWIFT?
Um - how exactly are you going to have a national international payment system? It's a literal oxymoron.
There actually are single-currency payment systems already -GBP has CHAPS, EUR has TARGET, etc. But if you want to send money internationally you have to use correspondent banking, and by far the simplest way to do that is via SWIFT messaging.

They don’t have to be separate systems so long as the encryption and messaging functionality for messages into a country are managed at the national level, rather than being controlled by a belgian association subject to Belgian law. Direct interfaces with the various national networks might be more useful, since many of them have more advanced capabilities than the standard swift messages.

While it would be an extra cost, ensuring money transfers are working despite hostile action is at least as necessary for national security as having a navy to keep sea lanes open.

 

[Cloudgazer]

They don’t have to be separate systems so long as the encryption and messaging functionality for messages into a country are managed at the national level, rather than being controlled by a belgian association subject to Belgian law.

Those are by definition separate systems.

Direct interfaces with the various national networks might be more useful, since many of them have more advanced capabilities than the standard swift messages.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. National networks and SWIFT do completely different things. That's exactly why not every bank in the world is on CHAPS. Heck not even every bank in the UK is on CHAPS. You're proposing that even the smallest bank would need to be on every single payment system everywhere.

While it would be an extra cost, ensuring money transfers are working despite hostile action is at least as necessary for national security as having a navy to keep sea lanes open.

'An extra cost', in the same way that chopping off both of your legs would be an extra impediment to climbing stairs. What you're talking about would be akin to the Swiss having a navy big enough to keep open all global sea lanes. It is one of those ideas which can only sound sensible to people who have no idea what it would entail.