The EU has designated "gatekeeper" companies under the DMA

[analogika]

Tell Europe to go fuck themselves.

Why?

I mean, I get that people are all up in their jingoistic knickers about this being a political thing, because (in this case) it affects American companies. (In all other cases, Americans only ever read about it at all when American companies are affected.)

But just putting aside the fact that most companies that meet the criteria are, in fact, American — and, just for the argument, assuming that the criteria weren’t designed to exclude euro services, but that there are no European services that would compete:

What exactly is your criticism of the bill in itself? Are you opposed to government efforts to try and make corporations behave responsibly?

Incidentally, I’m surprised that Telegram isn’t on the list.

 

[analogika]

It's entirely a political thing.

Write a policy that says companies need to provide interoperability if you want; but, this is just a torch bearing mob to rob the fancy coaches like highwaymen.

So because you think ONE POINT on a whole catalogue of things (including one that Google has already been fined for in the past) could be handled differently, the whole thing is purely political, and Europe can go fick themselves?

How do any of the DMA‘s regulations amount to „robbery“, specifically?


As for actual content —
IMHO, this one’s kind of a biggie:

„Gatekeeper platforms may no longer:

treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform“

That’s an antitrust issue, and it’s got companies in hot water in the past. The new regulations define a „responsibility threshold“.

 

[analogika]

Presupposing they should be broken up is entirely flawed.

The word „presupposing“ is the opposite of „drawing a conclusion from observing past behaviour“.

I don’t want Google to be destroyed. I don’t want Apple to be destroyed. I don’t want Meta to be destroyed. I want them to fucking respect how we do business here, follow the goddamn laws, and for there to be real leverage to enforce the law when they do not.

 

[analogika]

We’ll see how it plays out for Amazon — they’re a sales platform and never made any allusions to the contrary. It does need to stop, though — or be made transparent.

Google, however, has always given the impression of being a neutral mediator between your browsing/search history and what they think you’re looking for.
Abusing that standing to push their own shopfronts got them fined 2.4 BILLION € some years ago, already.


https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/MEMO_17_1785

 

[analogika]

The Eat the a rich mentality is fantastic, until you realize you're Rich from someone else's perspective.

Again: What, specifically, is your criticism of the bill in itself?

 

[analogika]

We have the other thread where some of us has already laid out some of the aspects of this DOJ case. We're going to have a lot of chances to discuss the merits.

One big difference is that DOJ is bringing this case under existing anti-trust law while the EU went to the trouble of crafting new legislation, in which all of the targets or designated gatekeepers are only US companies and one Chinese company, no EU company at all.

The EU anti-trust judgement following the Spotify complaint was based on violation of existing legislation, not the "Gatekeeper" legislation discussed in this thread.

 

[analogika]

True.

Do you think there won't be more enforcement actions under the DMA and DSA?

DMA and DSA holds the sword over the gatekeepers and makes them modify their practices, without necessarily bringing cases.

Sure. But that affects neither the EU case, nor the DoJ case. You claimed the DMA/DSA as a difference to the DoJ case — and it isn't.

 

[analogika]

I disagreed with his contention, pointed out that the DMA/DSA only targets US firms and one Chinese firm.

It was initially believed to apply to one Berlin-based company (Zalando) and one Amsterdam-based firm (booking.com), as well.


But the Spotify case is obviously still coloured by protectionist impulses, since the United States is apparently following suit (as predicted by almost everyone).

 

[analogika]

@wco81 , I literally wrote "was initially believed" — as in, the initial coverage of the "gatekeeper" criteria included Apple's iMessage, Zalando, and booking as possible candidates.

It only turned out later that the criteria wouldn't apply to them.

 

[analogika]

I don't see Zalando or booking.com on there. I don't know what Zalando is. Do they make €7.5 billion a year in annual turnover? Booking.com may or may not.

Zalando made 10.1 billion € revenue in 2023.

Do you have an internet where you live? I can recommend it.

 

[analogika]

If they're not among the gatekeepers as designated by the EU, why would I look them up?

Because you took more time to write about them after you'd misread my comment than it would have taken to look them up?

Get back to me when they have several EU companies as gatekeepers, because my contention was that the DMA/DSA primarily targets non-EU companies.

You tend to argue that it targets exclusively non-EU companies, as protectionist policy.

I merely pointed out that it actually initially looked like it would encompass two rather large EU companies, as well. That they ended up not being affected was apparently not protectionist design — or they wouldn't have looked to be targets at the beginning, either, eh? The issue passed them by — for now — just like it did iMessage.

 

[analogika]

So the EU just fined Apple €1.84 billion for the music streaming issue.

I've searched and searched and as far as I can tell, the official fines imposed by the EU on EU car manufacturers was less than €1 billion.

Why are you talking about car manufacturers now?