What is the purpose of forcing a company to publish user numbers for a service? Does this protect users or otherwise help them in some way? This is all about control and nothing more. These new regulations will result in less innovation and more convoluted software interfaces.
The EU Commission has to keep tabs on the criteria that makes one a "gatekeeper". The EU commission wants to make sure none of the US big 5 techs falls below any of the criteria that they set to ensure that only the US big 5 techs are labeled "gatekeepers". If any of the US big 5 techs drops below any of the thresholds they set, they must convene to lower the threshold set in the DMA, to ensure that the US big 5 techs always remains a "gatekeeper". The DMA allows for this.
>“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he said to the Financial Times. “But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added. The EU defines “gatekeeper” companies as those which span several countries, have a significant impact on the market, and link large numbers of users to large numbers of businesses. <
Of course ..... "large number of users" ... is anywhere between the minimum that any of the US big 5 techs have and the maximum of any EU company. If the two numbers overlap, then that criteria will no longer be used to determine a "gatekeeper".
And speaking of less innovation, here's a good article bringing up that point.
We can dispute the criteria used to determine what constitutes a gatekeeper but attempting to draw up conspiracy theories is just wackiness.
The limits have been set. If an EU based company reaches gatekeeper status it will fall under the legal obligations too.
That’s it.
My house. My rules. And the same rules for everyone.
As far as innovation is concerned, why not simply let the industry play out under the DSA/DMA and then evaluate the situation?
Laws are not knocked up forever and unchangeable. They get reviewed.
That said major EU directives have often been the model from which others imitate.
Care to name a major EU directive that has bombed? How do they stand up when compared to others? Are EU citizens up in arms about them? If they are, I certainly haven't heard about them.
The Common Agricultural Policy certainly has its critics, and its freedom of movement guarantee combined with a devolved and haphazard approach to bloc border control creates some problems.
No legislation will be free of critics but even the critics can't argue that the CAP hasn't been a success is many, many ways. The fact that is has been around for 60 years now says it all.
Some criticism is warranted but it wouldn't have been around so long if it had bombed (and the French have turned trashing lorries of Spanish tomatoes into a national past time).
Free movement has been one of the quintessential examples of the EU getting things right. Probably the best EU example of the exact opposite of bombing. Once again though, for some people, the very nature of free movement is abhorrent.
Bloc border control is quite literally a non-issue for anyone with a EU member state identity card or passport, under the treaty regulations. Other considerations can come into play when individual states implement extra controls (as was the case with Covid) but that is normal as each member state retains the right to refuse entry on certain grounds and is provided for in the treaty. Also, member states can suspend Schengen adherence but if you have a valid ID/passport you are good to go.
Sadly, after Brexit, I had to return my 'Member of the Union' certificate so free movement is gone for me.
Thanks to the U.S. for "encouraging" the devastated countries of Europe to turn their backs on nationalism, and to forming a "United States of Europe", ie, the EU, with generous funding from the Marshall Plan, all under the protective umbrella provided by the U.S. during the Cold war.
But every once in awhile, French, German, or British nationalism, works to tear the EU apart, likely with assistance from foreign interlopers, such as Russia wrt Brexit.
Do better, EU, and yeah, the U.S. does has its own political problems.
Now there is a twisted view of reality if ever there was one. LOL.
Yes, the US does have its political problems but a lot of what reaches me paints a far worse picture of a broken, divided society in decay.
That may be exaggerated and distorted but that's the image we get here.
There was in interesting video from Peter Zeihan about Iran seizing the Advantage Sweet, a Turkish owned tanker loaded with 800,000 barrels of crude oil. In the past, the U.S. Navy would have intervened with our allies. But the U.S. is less interested in remaining the world's guarantor of unimpeded marine trade, a task that it has maintained since the end of WWII. The U.S. and North America are self sufficient in energy, and less interested in policing the energy trade to the benefit of even our closest allies, not to mention our growing adversary, the Chinese Government.
The problem with the EU is that they are oblivious to the many benefits that the so called U.S. "hegemony" brings them, from protecting them from Russian militarism, to providing a stable global market. Perhaps it's time that the EU actually took on more of those duties itself, albeit they would likely revert to the Merkel plan of accommodating Russian aggression as a tradeoff to easy access of cheap and plentiful energy. Maybe France will get back to shipping thermal optics to Russia, and Germany to building another combined arms training center. (I mean, what the fuck!)
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to support Ukraine and NATO, and continues to buildup forces and alliances in the Indo Pacific to counter the increased militarism of China, while Macron makes an attempt at a world leader.
Comments
They would carry no weight if infractors could afford to pay them and continue with the same practices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08vDq2a5o3Q
The problem with the EU is that they are oblivious to the many benefits that the so called U.S. "hegemony" brings them, from protecting them from Russian militarism, to providing a stable global market. Perhaps it's time that the EU actually took on more of those duties itself, albeit they would likely revert to the Merkel plan of accommodating Russian aggression as a tradeoff to easy access of cheap and plentiful energy. Maybe France will get back to shipping thermal optics to Russia, and Germany to building another combined arms training center. (I mean, what the fuck!)
https://www.barrons.com/news/france-s-thales-accused-of-selling-to-russia-despite-sanctions-01650654607
https://tvpworld.com/61171499/russian-soldiers-train-at-training-ground-built-by-german-company
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to support Ukraine and NATO, and continues to buildup forces and alliances in the Indo Pacific to counter the increased militarism of China, while Macron makes an attempt at a world leader.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/emmanuel-macron-sparks-anger-europe-vassal-us-china-clash
LOL!
Macron is not the leader that the EU is looking for...