As a European, I’m glad that the influence of big, potentially dangerous companies is being kept in check. From the start of October, Meta is completely switching off political ads and now I can look forward to my feed stopping with tabloids, politics and Russian propaganda and going back to technical curiosities and capybaras.
I, as a European, am worried that these rulings, regulations, and the prevailing mindset will lead to companies leaving and result in technological stagnation, due to our inability to compete with global markets.
Of course, there is something to be said about the dangers, effectiveness, and societal impact of social media. But companies should have the right to decide how they conduct their business. They should also have the incentive to innovate and improve- without being threatened by overly strict or poorly designed laws.
The ruling here is about choice of recommendation system ('algorithm'), which ties into social media addiction as well as electoral influence. So there's actually quite a bit at stake.
If we're talking about actual technological innovation, then yes perhaps.
In this case we're talking about social media 'innovation' though. The science and art of getting a population highly addicted to doom scrolling. I'm not sure if that will help said population outcompete the other guys.
Any civilization that calls its citizens making a product choice "conquest" is terminally coddled and isn't going to make it through the century to come.
which choice are you talking about? there is no choice. there are no alternatives to facebook if all your friends are on it. there is no alternative to youtube, and for other products, the alternatives take a lot of effort. (hence despite the existence of linux, there is no choice to windows for example, because it comes preinstalled on every device. same for google infested android)
this is even worse in smaller and in less developed countries. they are most certainly being conquered.
and i don't get what you are trying to say. i am terminally coddled because i view google and facebook as conquerors? what does that even mean?
This seems like a bit of an empty moral panic/slippery slope appeal. As a general rule, it could go either way: civilizations can also collapse from not-enough-regulation, not-enough-rule of law, oligarchic capture, or even just become a megacorporation dystopia without collapsing for a long time, maybe ever. Better to critique the specific case, if you have any objections.
Of course not. I do think that the US might get bored of defending a continent that refuses to lift a finger to defend itself --- or put much effort into anything that isn't regulating, censoring, or fining someone, and then someone else will invade Europe and impose a techno-capitalist oligarchy or worse on it.
There is serious talk in the US now that democracy is a failed system and the country would be better run by a bunch of self-selected billionaires in perpetuity.
The election choices are between some-one is clearly senile, or somebody who clearly has no substance and, well, Trump.
Other recent candidates include sons of previous presidents, or wives of previous presidents.
And you are worried about Europe.
Europe is worried about Europe - but in the context of catching what the US has via dark money flowing through tech platforms driving politics.
Europe has this delusion that they can keep living their magically relaxed life, and continue to both fund it and stay relevant on the world stage.
FYI, the big players today are the US and China. Nobody has the heart to call and tell Europeans that they aren't really part of the future, they're still away on their 8th week long holiday of the year.
Not staying economically relevant is far (far) more harmful to society than forgoing social media.
Yeah sure, because life in the USA is so much more awesome than in Europe. Naww, they can keep their relevancy in the world stage. We are good over here living in the "stone age".
The problem isn't that Europe is living in the stone age, clearly they aren't. The problem is that they are living in the modern age entirely on the back of foreign tech. Chinese hardware running American software. Industry running on American energy, and protection totally reliant on American defense (the US spent more money per capita in Ukraine than the EU did...). This doesn't even factor in generous welfare programs that will need to be funded by a shrinking population(!) that doesn't have cutting edge skills anymore.
Europe decided to vacation for the last 30 years rather than go to work. The fruit of the post-war era was bountiful, and bank accounts were healthy, so why not take time off? Stone age is not a good way to describe Europe today, but over the next 10-20 years it very well may become more appropriate. European leaders are keenly aware of this, but man is it hard to convince the kids that they need to end their vacation, especially when it is all they have ever known.
This is the story American billionaires tell poor Americans every day. Those lazy Europeans may have it good now, but just you wait another 10 years. That affordable healthcare? There won’t be a doctor left! All those parents having a year of paternity leave? Unsustainable!
You guys keep working 80% harder! We will keep 99% of the profits, but don’t worry it will eventually trickle down to you. Hey, maybe one day there will be enough cash left over to fix our healthcare and education systems. Those Europeans are asleep on the wheel. Always protesting and striking and vacationing. Those fools.
Who designed the chip in your phone? Is it more likely to be Intel (US) or is it more likely to be ARM (UK)?
Where does Linux ( which pretty much runs the entire internet from routers to servers ) originate from?
> Industry running on American energy
Eh? While EU imports of US gas are on the rise due to the Ukraine war ( and the blowing up of Russian pipelines which, BTW, the US is implicated in ) - it's a fraction of total energy.
> protection totally reliant on American defense
So the US bases on British islands in the Indian Ocean, or in Japan ( put there after the end of the war with ... Japan ) are purely for the benefit of others and not in anyway part of US global interests?
companies leaving [will] result in technological stagnation, due to our inability to compete with global markets
on the contrary, companies leaving will allow and force us to develop european alternatives that can actually compete in europe. they don't need to compete on the global market.
Exactly. I’m not worried about this. If Meta leaves, it just opens the door for European alternatives, which means platforms that are easier to oversee. What concerns me more is the AI industry, but business here isn’t backed by private capital, so the willingness to take risks is much lower than in the US, which is a shame.
When it comes to Meta or any other dopamine-driven platform, European society would only gain from their absence. Anyone would do really.
> But companies should have the right to decide how they conduct their business.
Nope - not if it is to the detriment to society ( as decided by society via democratic means ).
In the UK - when radio and TV came along, society recognized the power of these platforms and the danger of how they could amplify single voices with money in an anti-democratic way. As such political advertising on such platforms very tightly controlled.
In addition there are overall limits on campaign spending.
Then along comes companies like Facebook and money powering political ad campaigns comes in through the back door, and in addition a lack of transparency on the overall spend as it's now much easier to hide.
Moves to curb this is simply society re-asserting it's existing rules, not some new imposition.
> I, as a European, am worried that these rulings, regulations, and the prevailing mindset will lead to companies leaving and result in technological stagnation
If your "technological progress" is dependent on algorithmic feeds and pervasive tracking, good riddance.
> But companies should have the right to decide how they conduct their business.
What Meta does is the equivalent of dumping nuclear waste in the middle of your city. I'm sure you don't think companies have the right to do the latter.
I'm very sceptical of the origin of comments like these. I don't know any actual Europeans who share these concerns because they know that the status quo is that the entire EU market is captured by US tech. And that this has been done through anticompetitive tactics as well as offloading trillions in negative externalities onto societies.
If you're truly a concerned European, you're incredibly naive, and need to read much more about how banally evil Meta is.
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuckerberg: Just ask
Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: They "trust me"
Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks
Facebook Nederland B.V. is just one of the defendants; the other defendants are Meta Platforms Ireland (based in Ireland), and Meta Platforms Inc. (the main company, based in the USA)
The Dutch subsidiary has been acquitted, as it only managed advertisement income, not the app design.
Meta Platforms Inc. has been acquitted, as it itself doesn't directly provide apps or services in Europe (nor the Netherlands) - legally that's managed by Meta Platforms Ireland and so not Inc.'s responsibility.
Meta Platforms Ireland has been ordered to implement these changes, enforced by the up to 5 million euro fine (see pages 20 and 21 in the verdict)
There is a level of investment we put in the platforms we use.
This comment is akin to asking farmers cut off from repairing their equipment "why don't you buy tractors from a different company instead of fighting to fix your existing ones?"
The investment in the case of social media is the network you've built. In my country most local events are announced primarily on facebook for example.
This article about the AT protocol (which Bluesky uses) provides a good argument for why alternative social media sites like will help prevent this feeling of lock-in in the future and is worth a read: https://overreacted.io/open-social/
Is it possible to use bluesky without a did:plc? Id rather be in control of my own identity than leave it irreversibly in the hands of yet another overlord.
That isn't a good comparison at all. "Don't use it" is a valid choice. I use it. None of my kids do. It's also "free" for you to use. So maybe stop trying to force them to do things while providing you a "free" service.
I don't think you understood their point at all. "Don't use it" isn't necessarily a valid choice when it's where all of your friends and/or family are. The "investment" is not monetary; instead, it takes the form of having connections on the platform. You are invested in the platform if your primary connection to someone is hosted there, and it costs a ton of time and effort to transfer that somewhere else.
Hindsight is easy, and perhaps had no-one taken up Facebook in 2004 we'd all be okay. It's also not always obvious what trade-offs you're making, because you cannot see the future.
Ultimately, it was not obvious in 2004 where we'd be today. Reality exists regardless of retrospective blame. The problem we have _today_ is the one we need to deal with.
In the first step, you get everyone to invest into your platform. You provide some valuable services to people, and they sign an implicit contract as a result.
In the second step, you reap what you sow. You switch the platform entirely and change its core nature and functionality. It's hard to stop using Facebook when everyone else is using Facebook, and this fact means you can do things which would normally have people leave your platform in droves.
This ruling limits the extent to which you can run such a bait and switch campaign. It's somewhat remarkable, because it extends some basic consumer rights to tech companies, even if there's no direct product nor a subscription in place. Personally, I think it's long overdue.
I'd say the major switch happened at the point where you lost control over your feed. It's not populated because you opted in to updates from a specific person or organization. It's populated by algorithm. Furthermore, at no point in time were any of these new features opt-in. Instead, they were enabled without your consent. Facebook has a long history of enabling features for people which is not in their interest in the slightest.
I should also say that it's more general than Meta. Google are also notorious for doing stuff like this. About time we start legislating against it.
An important matter in this particular case: It's about elections as well.
You can opt to not use facebook yourself to protect your own data, that is more or less fine. (Though we can talk about Facebook's collection of non-user data another time)
You can't individually opt out of the election influence.
