imo it's just a thinly veiled protectionist law that will fracture the internet all for the sake of propping up EU incumbents who can't innovate.
If free market were effective, we wouldn't have needed labour laws to keep people from dying in factories where they work 16 hours a day, we wouldn't need laws to make vehicles safe, we wouldn't be desperately looking for agreements to curb pollution and climate change, we wouldn't need laws to protect minorities against discrimination.. hell, I don't think we'd need laws at all because everyone would just rationally and effectively choose good actors & displace bad actors.
It's a nice fantasy, but it's not one we live in.
Even the US knows rules for markets - it’s never entirely free. European laws just set more rules and give the consumers more rights - something I consider useful where there’s a strong imbalance in knowledge and power between the consumers and the companies offering a service.
National regulation is a form of centralized economic planning. Is it always bad? No. Is it always good? No.
TikTok was nearly forced to sell parts of its operation so it could continue operating in the US, in India it's actually banned.
> DuckDuckGo's success is an example of that.
As good as DDG is, it's not that great of an example as all the background tech there still relies on Microsoft's Bing, which means there is very much a US-centric search engine monopoly in place.
> that will fracture the internet
Maybe the Internet needs fracturing, we've reached a point where a handful of US corporations control the vast majority of the web traffic [0], that kind of massive centralization is the absolute antithesis to what the web is supposed to be and presents a massive filter bubble in-itself.
[0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
Yes, that's a great example of protectionism that was reversed.
> As good as DDG is, it's not that great of an example as all the background tech there still relies on Microsoft's Bing, which means there is very much a US-centric search engine monopoly in place.
DDG is not the only privacy focused search service. There are others with their own homegrown search engines. I believe some of them are French. This also reflects consumer demand. DDG only able to evolve and grow based on how many people want to use the service.
The US could coordinate and work with the EU to try and craft laws that span both regions in a unified manner so that businesses can operate more freely but instead they're choosing to subsidize a protectionist agenda by levying a cost on the privacy information of its residents.
I love your wording. Regulation mixed with "operating more freely" is oxymoronic. The same can be said with your argument of "subsidizing a protectionist agenda" when you're referring to the lack of regulation and legislation.
> As a counter point - I think it's fair to view the extreme lack of consumer protection laws in the US as protectionism for domestic tech companies. T
The spat between US tech companies and France's ancient media companies is not new. It's very disingenuous to pretend that the purpose of these laws is just to protect consumers.
Regulation is a firm requirement to a free market, without regulation of any kind you will pretty quickly descend into authoritarianism as whoever has the biggest stick will just take everyone else's stick. While there definitely are dangers at the other end of the spectrum if you're fanatically at either end you've got to ignore a whole bunch of pretty well known issues.
> Regulation is a firm requirement to a free market, without regulation of any kind
I agree, but there are lines that when crossed either negates or greatly lessens the overall benefit for most people outside of vested interests.
> you will pretty quickly descend into authoritarianism
Moreover, historically speaking - centralized economic planning tends into devolve into tyranny vs systems with primarily free markets.
This is also much less about protecting consumers than it is about protecting old French incumbents who are unable to evolve.
Common regulation between jurisdictions allows businesses subjected to the regulatory oversight of multiple involve jurisdictions to operate more freely than if the jurisdictions did not coordinate and instead adopted regulations where it was impossible to comply with one without violating the other.
You shouldn't just pick one word from one part of a statement and a two-word phrase in another part and ignore the rest of the statement in order to create your own argument to respond to.
