[camgunz]

I think it's more EU tech protectionism. Basically the law is saying, "you can't use US tech services." So this creates a local market for EU tech services. There's probably an argument between capitalists in the EU who want to develop that market (while complying with EU privacy regulations) and security people in the EU/US who want to continue to use tech to facilitate mass surveillance.

Trying to guess who will win out is interesting. The privacy vs. surveillance discussion always feels one crisis away from tipping to surveillance (see: 9/11), but the EU privacy lobby is remarkably strong. I also think a market for tech services that don't spy on you is probably pretty huge; by itself it's not a big selling point, but contrasted against services that definitely spy on you (not to mention net neutrality concerns) they look pretty good, plus being able to tap the EU market is a huge incentive. So--no jinx--I think I'm bullish on privacy here, because it seems likely an unholy alliance of capitalists and privacy advocates would be decisive.

[amadeuspagel]

GDPR dramatically reduced venture investments in europe, compared to the US[1]. Protectionism is not something you can do indirectly. It requires certainty and clarity.

[1]: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/short-run-effects-gdpr-techno...

[camgunz]

I'm not really talking about GDPR here; it's not US-specific and doesn't have the effect of walling off the EU market from the US.

I'm not a huge fan of GDPR FWIW; in particular I think the requirement to have representatives and data protection officers is way too burdensome for smaller companies. They probably thought they'd create a cottage industry of EU representative/DPO service companies, but that's so little of a business it just feels like an invitation to set one up as a front for money laundering. I like the thought of GDPR, but the law as written is actually pretty weird IMO.