Replying to Avatar Constant

Let me abuse kind 1 here:

Today I went to the meetup associated with the Dutch mini-documentary called ‘Error 404: het internet in crisis’(the internet in crisis), that was released a few days ago.

The episode was about how regulation could keep fight back on the negative practices of social media platforms, following a Greenparty member of the European parliament, the Executive Director of the Mozilla Foundation and some lawyer trying to fight a legal battle with Meta.

The underlying question was whether something could still be done or if the crisis was complete.

I had a lot of disagreements with what was shown in the documentary, but it is relevant especially that the EU ‘Digital Services Act’ is going into force now. I decided to go to the meetup where a couple of the key players in the documentary would speak and the audience could ask questions.

My main take-away is that there is this sense of desperation, a lack of control on the situation. The idea that these few large corporations just do whatever they want and are geared towards hacking our very human nature. This path of legislation is experienced as their only hope in turning the tide, using the great power structure in the shape of the EU to fight the monolith of a handful of all powerful platforms. This general sentiment is being expressed explicitly from out the EU itself, stating the ambition to be a world superpower by mean of creating legislation; be it AI, cryptocurrencies or social media. Europe can’t seem to create competitive businesses in these fields, so they try to achieve their edge this way, at least so is the thought.

My sense is that these for the most part are very confused people. To illustrate, during the session they expressed their complaints with profiling and targeted advertisements, to subsequently argue a minute later that better targeted adds should help reduce a lot of spammy irrelevant advertisement practices by only getting things that are relevant to you. They did not seem self-aware of this blatant contradiction, and for the most part operate on some ‘if it sounds good it ought to be that way, if it sounds bad it ought not to be that way’ mode of thinking; unaware of the technical reality of things. I guess a concrete expression of this (that was not discussed, but that is besides the point), is the EU now insisting chat applications (whatsapp, signal etc.) become interoperable; it sounds nice, but how on earth is that going to work? Not their problem, for they have an ought in mind and their dictates will make it a reality...somehow.

In the context of the meetup I was only able to ask one question. I decided to ask that given they take issue with the monopoly position of these large platforms, if they did not fear that all these barriers and costs resulting from this legislation would prevent alternatives from coming up, and that it would not just solidify the position of these platforms able to cover theses costs.

The answer boiled down to something like ‘we legislate bad things, and bad things are not the type of innovation we want, so it wont prevent the innovation we do want.’. The host subsequently asked in response to that answer if that did not simply mean that it was them deciding on what was good and what was bad innovation. This followup question caused confusion, they did not seem to comprehend that this could be the case. They did not really have an answer other than that if insights would change over time, new legislation could be made.

From taking a glance at this EU ‘Digital Services Act’ it predominately focuses on ‘Very large online platforms’ (technical term for anything with more than 45 million monthly users), and for the most part is geared towards forcing companies to have adequate processes in place. So the emphasis is more on due diligence than making them directly liable for stuff happening on their platforms.

Still, the devil is in the details with these things, and they shoe-horned a bunch of ‘grey area’ subjects into this like ‘gender-based violence, public health, and mental and physical wellbeing’.

I do sympathize with these people but in the best case they are useless and in the worst case they are counter productive. Unfortunately they do have their hands on levers of power; and I am frankly more concerned about them, than ‘Big Tech’.

From my own experience, would tend to believe they are good-willed for the most part albeit technically unsavvy and this hasn't changed in decades.

I think anyone here can remember the cookies flop and its impact on the internet, but there were also good things like setting up the USB-C port as default to reduce waste and internet roaming across EU without extra costs.

On this case the legislation aims for large platforms, which is unusually reasonable. Innovation tends to come from small platforms that remain safeguarded that way.

Will that regulation be effective without deep technical know-how? I think not, still remember flops like the Privacy Shield which forced US companies to host data in Europe but then permitted their technicians to perform on-site maintenance unsupervised, which basically defeated the purpose of assuring those critical infrastructure tools remained private.

Please do keep posting your impressions, it was a delightful read.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I think you bring here incomparable things:

Default USB-C port us example of EU attack on free market. The same as those non-removable caps in the bottles. Waste if time and resources.

Unifying telecommunications like roaming is the opposite. Removing bariers of communication which I find possitive.

They have never tried to remove bariers in services to create common services market.

The roaming thing is actually a hard problem of accounting, for which the actual sollution would be paying directly for internet acces/bandwidth in some way or another. Which in turn is a technical problem of payments.

Providers do incurr costs and risks, they are only not allowed to directly price those anymore. Albeit that i dont have a lot of sympathy for mobile providers, and they fuck and squeeze consumers in every way they can think off (paying for SMS for example), so in that sense the legistlation was not too bad.

Then again, when are they going to ban these stupid subsciption churn praktices; its an entire fucking industry that produces absolutely nothing. All it does is it forces consumers to play this stupid game of 'its the end of my subscription, i will leave if you dont give me another deal' on the one end; and this endless groundswell of small parties with cheap deals that just farm clients in order to sell themselves again to the big providers after a short while.

Anyway, off topic i guess, but you guys got me started 🤣

Point being to solve these problems there should be 0 bureaucrats needed.

Have to concede it would likely yield better results.. :-)

They removed the administrative (EU Single Market) and literal borders (Schengen) and created a single market for all European businesses that consists of >500 million potential customers and uses a single universally accepted currency. But apart from that, yes, they did nothing 🤔

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/services_en

The single market and borders thing was all the EEC, not the EU.

The EEC was always an integral part of what has been the EU since the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, not something separate. What am I missing?

For one that those things were pre 1993....

You attribute stuff to the EU, that is not from the EU.

Il ignore that it was the EC that was formed in 1993, not the EU, because it is irrelevant

The formal name of the Maastricht Treaty is even "The Treaty on European Union". It's the foundation document of the EU and includes agreements on the use of a single currency.

It feels like we don't share the same definition of concept of "EU" somehow? When was your EU founded and how is the EC not a predecessor and integral part of it?

Sorry to disappoint you but let me show you some examples:

- can you register transportation company in one country and just service customers from other countries on price you find fair in terms if your country? No

- can you do the same as plumber, electrician, architect? No

- lawyer?

You need to apply for permit in particular country and use their minimal prices.

This is not free market

It is easier to export tomatoes than replace shower in the bathroom.

I never said it was a free market, I said it was a "single market".

I only responded to your statement that the EU "never tried to remove barriers", which they obviously have done

You can bad mouth the god-awful bottle caps but USB-C as standard was a good thing. I still remember the wild-west of the 2000s when every single device had its own charger port. My drawer is full of artifacts from those days.

I'm not even a fan of the USB-C hardware port but it feels good to just need one charger for the phone, laptops, razor machine and everything in between.

I agree with what you say even though I have the opposite as my old iPhone has lightning and new one usb-c. My main concern is that allowing those bureaucrats to enforce one standard in one are leads to their next ideas . They never stop or take step back. They always want more.