That's the fig leaf, sure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with these companies looking like big, fat loot pinatas to bureaucrats in Brussels. And London.
The EU is the government literally making the laws. It’s as arbitrary as any government making laws. US law does not apply outside of US jurisdictions unless we are willing to use our military power to take over their sovereignty.
Do you think when the US applies its laws to foreign companies operating in their borders that it’s just made up and arbitrarily enforced?(ignoring the current admin, I would agree they are doing that by ignoring our own laws)
The EU creates new laws in order to constrain the business models of big tech, gives them a deadline to comply, and then fines them if they determine the changes weren't sufficient.
You can argue that regulation is fine and I agree, but those fines generate a lot of money. The commission then uses those funds for various programs.
If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
Can you define the word “law” and the word “regulation” for me. You are using them interchangeably while arguing that they should be treated different so I can’t understand your argument beyond a strawmaned version of “I don’t like their laws so it’s not ok”.
I rather engage with the steel man version of your belief so please give me one.
"A regulation is a legal act of the European Union which becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously."
I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.
Also, I didn't say "I don't like the EU's laws/regulations". I'm stating that they do target US tech with NEW laws/regulations and the result is large fines. A lot of the time they are wrapped up in a PR package about competition and after years of this, Europeans still prefer to use US tech.
> I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.
This is what you said most recently
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
This is what you said originally that makes a distinction between law and regulation.
I truly cannot understand what you mean if you cannot define these as separate definitions but treat them like they are separate definitions.
The only distinction I made was between established and new. It truly doesn't matter at all if I use both law and regulation even in the same sentence.