[mellosouls]

Are you being sarcastic or trolling?

Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region, which is rather different to "following" it - and if indicating an intentional direction, pretty much a disgrace for a flagship tech company - so let's hope it's just temporary poor performance (or charitably, a staggered release) unrepresentative of their intentions going forward.

[bioemerl]

> Google is presumably not competent or willing here to uphold or conform to important law in a leading democratic region

The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement".

A key difference here. Google is following the law. They are not implementing the standard that the EU requires because that standard requires overhead.

Google has probably just done the math and realized the effort isn't worth the reward. They'll probably change that once things exit beta.

And if they don't, that's likely the EUs fault more than it is Google. Google isn't just banning the EU for fun, they want that extra reach and money for sure.

[mellosouls]

The fact they are democratic doesn't make all the laws they pass good or worthwhile to "implement"

That's not for Google to decide. Google is a worldwide corporation, not some SV start-up dipping its toe in the water that is only expected to serve a tiny legislative region.

The absurdity of the perspective that they can pick and choose laws to approve should become clear if you change EU-conformance with US.

I'm guessing that this is a temporary situation and Google should clarify that as soon as possible to avoid looking arrogant or incompetent.

[bioemerl]

> That's not for Google to decide.

It is explicitly for Google to decide.

Not releasing a product in the EU is well within their right to do, and if the EU begins to demand not only regulation but also that all products are released equally they'll be holding back the entire world and Google should have the EU entirely.

[lolinder]

It's entirely within Google's rights to decide they don't want to be a worldwide corporation anymore if they find it's unprofitable to continue being one!

The law says "if you want to operate in the EU, you must do X." Google looked at that equation and said they didn't want to do X, so they didn't roll out Bard in the EU. That's in full compliance with the law, no different than PornHub blocking Utah. If you don't like it, talk to your representatives.

I think what people in this thread are really frustrated with is that for a long time the US has been imposing its laws on other countries quite successfully. International corporations have generally found it worthwhile to comply with US law in order to operate there, and people were hoping that the same would be true of the EU. When it turns out that for some companies it hasn't been, it seems unfair.

[ghaff]

So Google is so big that they have to offer all their services in the EU in a way that's compliant with EU laws? They can't simply choose not to offer services that may run afoul of regulations? If some large manufacturer has products not compliant with EU regulations, they're similarly also not allowed to restrict the markets where their products are sold?

[amadeuspagel]

Google is a US company, that's why they have to obey US laws. Companies don't pick and choose which laws to approve, they pick and choose where to do business.

[mellosouls]

The parochial "US company/US customers/US laws" argument here and elsewhere in the thread has already been addressed.

It's a long time since Google has been merely American, its on everybody's desktop and phone and is a huge multinational that is part of everybody's culture.

[sclarisse]

They’re complying by not offering the product. Makes sense to me.

It’s a free product. Any effort spent making it compliant is an expense not paid for. Any non compliance is a business risk, with a percent of global revenue at stake. Why take that risk for no benefit?

Maybe once they have a revenue model for it and find it profitable things will change. Until then the GDPR is not the essence of all that is good in the world such that only the wicked heathens would dare not pay it homage. That’s imperialistic moralizing of the sort which at this point belongs in the dustbin of history along with Europe’s other collective efforts in the area.

[Xcelerate]

This makes complete sense to me. Amazing that a company is getting criticism for not making a product available. One thing I’ve learned from HN over the years is that people are going to be mad and criticize you regardless of what you do, so just do what you want anyway and ignore the criticism.

I really don’t like the way a lot of big corporations are handling things recently (especially with regard to layoffs and RTO), but I’m also not surprised that overly critical feedback by anonymous commenters on HN has little effect on changing people’s minds.

[ghaff]

There is this very strong thread here that a large US company has some moral imperative to offer a (free for now) product/service in the EU by people who presumably would not make the same case for China, much less Russia.

[bertil]

The appropriate reaction is probably the same as if you hear that a brand of snacks is not legal to sell as food in the EU. You probably want to investigate.

EU is many things and has some wacky laws (check Northern Ireland), but if a digital service is breaking EU law, they are likely doing something you do not want them to do.

[seanmcdirmid]

There are lots of agricultural goods not available in the states that are available in Europe, and vice versa. Few people take that as a signal that there is some danger in those products (well, except those chocolate eggs with toys in them), it’s just different places having different rules.

[bertil]

I can assure you that most Europeans think the reason US meat is not for sale here is because it is unfit for consumption: look at the debate in the UK around “chlorinated chicken” just after Brexit, or hormone beef. For most processed food, the (founded) assumption is that it’s full of HCFS.

[mellosouls]

No, the imperialistic moralising is thinking a corporation gets to make the rules over democratic institutions.

[_Wintermute]

If you consistently fine a company for breaking your rules, you can't then demand access to their products that might break your rules.

[mellosouls]

Maybe they shouldn't break the rules instead?

[bioemerl]

The EU is not within their right to regulate products made by Americans companies sold to Americans. If we want to talk imperialism, this is exactly that sort of overreach.

[mellosouls]

That's a related but different point to here, it's not a counter argument.

[zwily]

There are a couple ways to do that. One is by not offering the product.

[carlosjobim]

How do you reason? Google decided to follow the EU rules by not offering the service there.