Would you rather they iterate towards a solution or have giant corporations calling the shots?
They're just trying to fix Google's mess, like when they have to litigate to collect taxes or when the DOJ litigates to prevent colluding to depress employee wages or when customers litigate to collect their refunds. It's Google forcing new laws and litigation, the EU is much their victim as their employees, customers and users.
Article 13 is medieval era legislation. We should be undoing copyright laws, not clamping down on the most fundamental freedoms.
I say this without jest: At least the giant corporations can be held to account - I can choose not to use their services, or decide to use an adblocker. The EU can't and I can't opt out of it.
Consumer choice can have a positive effect on giant corporations, but it can fail just as often. For example, how easy is it for average consumers to avoid websites that use tracking cookies to follow them around the web? Similarly, how many consumers care enough about the emissions of cars or power stations to base their purchasing decisions on that?
In matters such as these (and others, such as food, medicine, and transport safety), it makes more sense to have government regulation rather than relying solely on consumer pressure. Moreover, it is more efficient for businesses to have one consistent set of rules to follow, rather than a patchwork of 28 contradictory rules, and it is harder for large corporations to pressure countries if those countries are acting together as a bloc.
If you want to opt out of the EU, I'm sure there are several territories in the world that would welcome you to live there. Alternatively, you have EU protected free speech and voting rights to convince your fellow citizens that your country should end its EU membership. You just need to get enough of those citizens (and their elected representatives) to agree on what specific alternative to EU membership they want instead.
> example, how easy is it for average consumers to avoid websites that use tracking cookies to follow them around the web?
The reason nothing has been done is because the majority are uninformed or just don't care. I'd argue we still get the better end of the deal with free as in beer content.
> Moreover, it is more efficient for businesses to have one consistent set of rules to follow, rather than a patchwork of 28 contradictory rules, and it is harder for large corporations to pressure countries if those countries are acting together as a bloc.
What do you personally think is better? A huge institution with power to regulate the markets of 28 nations, or 28 independent nations?
It's not about money. I think it's too much power concentrated into a single body. Would you prefer a business-first approach for anything else?
> EU protected free speech
Not allowing parody and remix is also an attack on my free speech.
I am confused as to your point, it is SOOOO much easier to block cookies and buy an EV than it is to get citizenship in a foreign country.
That is why EU wide regulations need to be considered with more considation for the needs of EU users and less consideration for the demands of private industry lobbyists.
They're just trying to fix Google's mess, like when they have to litigate to collect taxes or when the DOJ litigates to prevent colluding to depress employee wages or when customers litigate to collect their refunds. It's Google forcing new laws and litigation, the EU is much their victim as their employees, customers and users.
None of which had anything to do with Google News and publisher demands.
I say this without jest: At least the giant corporations can be held to account - I can choose not to use their services, or decide to use an adblocker. The EU can't and I can't opt out of it.