[vampirical]

Please re-read what you’ve written in these two comments with a critical eye. You’re speaking from a lack of knowledge without very much care and reaching incorrect conclusions that agree with your initial bias. When someone else does the work of helping nudge you towards reality you seem to be doing a poor job correcting. Sorry if this comes across as rude, it’s said with the kindest of intentions.

[rafaelmn]

So I did quick excel math - I took just the US companies from top 100, sumed them and then I summed everything else (the entire list, not just top 100) - including tiktok - and the ratio is almost 3 to one against US companies in total.

In fact Meta alone is fined more than everyone else combined.

What exactly am I missing ?

[oblio]

The fact that the EU just doesn't have big companies in the fields that are more likely to be abusive with customer data.

It's a bit like the sweatshop argument. If your company wins out by using sweatshops, yeah, you're going to end up with the billion dollar argument. But if a certain market doesn't want stuff produced by sweatshops, and they decide to dis-incentivize it by tariffing it, that:

a) makes sense from their point of view

b) is moral from a global perspective

Similar approach here.

[rafaelmn]

Thats all a matter of perspective, not something I am willing to argue. EU has a history of making protectionist legislation under the guise of protecting its members, eg. the whole GMO story, and I can see how someone can make an argument here. If it is valid or not is up to you I guess.

But saying that the fines are mostly towards EU members when over 2/3 is fined towards US companies is misrepresenting the data and the opposing viewpoint.

[oblio]

Fixing a typo:

* you're going end up with the billion dollar company