68 comments

  • Sharlin an hour ago

    One gossamer-thin silver lining in this current geopolitical lunacy is that it's likely to show the current Commission's pro-corpo anti-citizen endeavors like this, to bend the knee to US corporate interests, in an increasingly bad light. Particularly given that activating anti-coercion measures that target those very corporate interests is now being seriously discussed.

    • trueno 13 minutes ago

      EU and the rest of the world needs to ditch their anti circumvention laws that they put in place to appease the US demands on trade deals historically. They're getting tarrif'd anyways so YOLO. I think you'd see a lot of pressures ease up that are probably putting a lot of politicians around the world in compromised or blackmail-able positions. US Tech really needs to lose this massive leverage they have over the world right now.

    • sph 14 minutes ago

      Is it a silver lining? I think it's clear that whoever runs any government is free to do whatever they want with total impunity. Dissatisfied citizens complaining on Twitter is not gonna remove any "pro-corpo anti-citizen" politician from power. And if they take it to the streets, they'll just copy the UK's playbook.

      Power corrupts, and the more steps removed politicians are from whomever put them in power, the safer they are.

    • shrubby 23 minutes ago

      Yes. Masks are off. And Musks.

      • MonkeyClub 15 minutes ago

        Masks have been of for a while, but as long as the EU people can't vote the EU presidency out of office, it's to no avail.

        It was a (steel and coal) corp affordances union to begin with, so it's no wonder it's pandering to business rather than civic interests after all.

        Von der Leyen is corrupt yet shapes EU policy without backlash, and the citizenry is left to pay the price, precisely because the EU pretends to speak for the people.

  • 201-12958 an hour ago

    The EU leaders falsely assume that US cloud services are essential and let themselves be blackmailed over and over again.

    If you want to do your part as a consumer, boycott all American products:

    https://www.goeuropean.org/

    • rob74 34 minutes ago

      Since "Cola" is listed in the "popular alternatives" box, I think it's important to mention that most European Coca-Cola bottlers operate as franchises, i.e. they license the Coca-Cola brand and get the syrup for the drinks they bottle from the Atlanta-based HQ, but other than that they are locally-owned companies. So if you boycott Coca-Cola brands, maybe 20% of the impact goes to Coca-Cola US, while 80% is felt by the local company and its employees.

      • pjc50 8 minutes ago

        It's arguably unhealthy that one company has such global dominance over any market, even a trivial one like soft drinks.

      • PaulRobinson 16 minutes ago

        That just means they have all the infrastructure they need to bottle syrup from another source and start selling that instead - no capex needed, just maybe need to get together with other franchisees and figure out how to spend some opex on marketing and getting it onto store shelves. Coca-cola has a moat, but it's hardly protective of franchisees here.

      • dukeyukey 17 minutes ago

        > So if you boycott Coca-Cola brands, maybe 20% of the impact goes to Coca-Cola US, while 80% is felt by the local company and its employees.

        Assuming the person burns the money they would've spent on Cola in the first place. But they aren't, they'll probably just redirect that money to an alternative soft drink, probably a more local one.

        • xvector 4 minutes ago

          If you totally remove Coke from the market, sure, but no one wants to drink a knockoff Coke, they want the actual thing.

    • sschueller an hour ago
    • devsda an hour ago

      When my country and China had border clashes, there was a nation-wide grassroot level movement to boycott Chinese goods and services where possible. It worked to an extent but it fizzled out in few weeks/months. Some of the reasons were the impracticality of total boycott so you start from a position of compromise, difficulty to sustain a movement born out of anger and some inter-govt agreements to avoid escalations etc.

      Do you have plans to overcome those sort of challenges and sustain this initiative ?

      • deaux 39 minutes ago

        Boycotting US tech is magnitudes easier than boycotting Chinese-made products. They're in whole different universes. Especially on a country level, let alone a EU level.

        Is removing the dependence on US tech easy for the EU? No, it's tough and takes a lot of work and time. It's still a piece of cake compared to the dependence on Chinese manufacturing. They're incomparable.

        • devsda 15 minutes ago

          The most critical and impactful modern day tech is smartphone and that is US tech.

          As long as mobile os and adjacent services like the store etc are controlled there is no true path to digital independence especially in a highly digitalized region like the EU.

          One example is if EU allows the Android developer verification to pass this year in its current or even in more relaxed form, that just means EU is still open for some hard lessons in the future.

        • austinthetaco 27 minutes ago

          Does that include not using AWS or anyone that is a host interface to AWS? Does that include social media like hacker news or instagram? I have no stakes here (I'm an American who doesn't run a tech business) but it seems like it would be unfathomly difficult if not impossible to avoid US tech altogether.

        • the_duke 32 minutes ago

          Tell that to all the companies that built their entire tech stacks on US cloud providers...

          Massive endeavor for a lot of setups.

          • GuB-42 6 minutes ago

            While it is a "massive endeavor", it is not impossible, it essentially amounts to writing portable code. A computer is a computer, and most of the tech stack in US cloud providers is based on open source projects.

            Not depending on Chinese manufacturing is borderline impossible even if you are starting from scratch. Not only it will be way more expensive, with potentially longer delays and lesser capacities, but just finding some company that can and wants to do the job can be a nightmare. From what I have seen, many local manufacturers in the US and Europe are really there to fulfill government contracts that requires local production.

            Most hardware kickstarter-like projects rely on Chinese manufacturing as if it was obvious. It is not "find a manufacturer", it is "go to China". Projects that instead rely on local (US/Europe) manufacturing in order to make a political statement have to to though a lot of trouble, and the result is often an overpriced product that may still have some parts made in China.

      • bluegatty 18 minutes ago

        The government has to mandate it on some level with purchasing power.

        If the government switched away from Microsft and refused to accept MS document formats for any legal reason - then things might shift.

        Most businesses just don't care, they want they easy button.

        A law firm does not want to screw around, they just click 'buy' on Word, Outlook, Teams.

        There's a deep psychology to it.

        I remember a developer telling me that Oracle 'was the only real database'.

        It's not so much propaganda, just the propagandistic power of incumbency. People who only know one thing are hard pressed to believe there could be something else.

        This is more than 50% brand, narrative etc.

        We techies tend to underestimate the power of perception, even when it's of our own creation etc. i.e. people fighting over Linux and it's various distros.

      • joe_mamba an hour ago

        You speak about India?

        Yeah, EU is super fucked too since it outsourced its energy dependence to Russia, consumer manufacturing to China, defence and tech services to US, and only just woke up in the last 3 or so years that it was all a huge mistake that's now costing us dearly since we're at the whims of all 3 belligerents who know that now is the time they can squeeze us.

        Trying to undo just one dependency is a slow and painful process, but fighting all 3 at the same time is a suicide mission.

        The US outsourced its manufacturing too, but unlike EU, it has a strong enough economy and military that they can just snap their fingers and the likes of Taiwan and Korea will immediately onshore manufacturing of their high end chips and ships to the US, but EU doesn't have this kind leverage.

      • boerseth an hour ago

        It is understanably hard to stay vigilant with respect to individual everyday purchases, but services and subscriptions are an easy and continuous win.

    • anal_reactor 29 minutes ago

      China making a firewall so that it would grow its own tech industry instead of relying on the US was, in retrospect, a really smart move.

      • xienze 13 minutes ago

        It was also very smart of them to send their citizens to US universities and companies and exfiltrate research and IP to grow their own tech industry...

  • eclipsetheworld 3 minutes ago

    As a European founder building startups since 2015, I’ve spent a massive chunk of my career navigating the "alphabet soup" of EU regulation: GDPR, DSA, DMA, AI Act, CSRD, SFDR, CBAM... the list is exhausting.

    While the goals are usually noble, I’m increasingly convinced we’re regulating ourselves into irrelevance. I’m not a Big Tech company yet my interests align with theirs. We desperately need an EU that prioritizes actual growth over well-intentioned paperwork. To me, the AI Act and the GDPR are the worst offenders here, representing the largest possible gap between "good intentions" and the actual effect they have on the ground.

    Consider frontier LLM labs. We have the talent, the Nordic data centers, and access to the GPUs. But why would any investor drop $100B on a frontier LLM lab here when the legislative environment is fundamentally more hostile than the US? It feels like we’ve already watched Mistral and Aleph Alpha get left in the dust.

    To give you an idea of the "compliance vs. reality" GDPR gap: I worked on a project processing healthcare data for millions of people. We had a clear, easy-to-find privacy policy and a responsive DPO. Total GDPR requests for info or deletion? Exactly 53. Out of millions. We spent thousands of hours building systems for rights that only 0.001% of our users cared to use.

    If you look at the courts, the "damage" being prevented is equally vague. Since EU courts don't really do punitive damages, most awards are tiny unless there’s actual identity theft. Most of what GDPR protects is "mental distress" or "loss of control"-concepts so ambiguous that courts rarely award anything for them unless something else went wrong.

    The result of all this "protection"? No FAANG-equivalent, no frontier AI leader, and no homegrown ad-tech. It turns out the most perfectly regulated company is the one that never exists in the first place.

  • RalfWausE an hour ago

    Luckily, the orange idiot in charge is doing us (the Europeans) a favor showing us that America (and its companies) are no longer a trustworthy partner. In a way i really hope he goes through with the Greenland stuff... this would be the final nail in the coffin.

    • zo1 5 minutes ago

      This is the kind of commentary that makes me come to HN less and less, which justifies my own low effort comment. Western europe, Germany included, is well on track to becoming a third world sharia "shithole" with nukes, and the more sane countries distance themselves from such a suicidal trajectory, the better.

    • Forgeties79 an hour ago

      Brexit didn’t do anything to correct the UK’s current trajectory. I guarantee you even destroying the relationship with NATO would not shift the course the US is on. Every time something extreme happens, people gasp for a second then accept it and move on. I don’t think the situation in the US is hopeless by any means, but Greenland is not going to suddenly be some magical moment that wakes everybody up. We’ve done this song and dance for a decade with Trump. After the attack on the capitol it be became very clear that it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than we thought.

      • bondarchuk 39 minutes ago

        GP was not about America changing but about Europe.

    • taneliv an hour ago

      I suppose you're not one of the conscripted (or even professional) soldiers that would be called to duty to protect the region in case of an armed conflict?

      • RalfWausE 31 minutes ago

        I am in the reserve of the german army, so i can be called up if things escalate beyond a certain point (the so called "Verteidigungsfall").

    • ta20240528 43 minutes ago

      Europe is desperately trying to find some way to let US have "control" without destroying the Danish kingdom; A Minsk Agreement for Greenland if you will.

      They don't have the stomach for a fight.

      • PaulRobinson 12 minutes ago

        The US already has bases on Greenland. It is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and therefore is already a NATO ally territory. They already have all the "control" they need to keep it out of the hands of Russia and China. There is no need to "let" the US have "control". If the US were being run by people who understood the basis on which they have a base there, they would realise they already have all the control they need from a strategic perspective.

      • bootsmann 40 minutes ago

        Very bold claim to make unsourced from an account with a very _interesting_ posting history.

      • joe_mamba 38 minutes ago

        Greenland invasion is just a distraction by Trump from the Epstein files. The US already have massive military presence in Greenland with permission from Denmark since the 1950s, they can already do whatever illegal things they want there (and they have, like installing a portable nuclear reactor), without the downsides that come with actual ownership of the island. They already have a really sweet deal.

        Trump keeps talking about taking it because he knows the media will bite the bait and talk about that instead and forget about the epstein list and other illegal shit his administration did.

        Remember how he was also talking about annexing Canada in his election? Trump just loves to bait the media by saying crazy stuff since the media feeds on sensationalist stuff like that.

        • pjc50 5 minutes ago

          He also attacked Venezuela, after talking about it a lot.

          The problem is our Kremlinology is no longer capable of discerning what's a bluff and what's not. Therefore, at significant cost to both sides, we have to unravel some of the interdependency between the EU and the US.

        • rob74 19 minutes ago

          So, he wants to distract from past illegal shit by doing more illegal shit? Doesn't sound like a viable long-term strategy to me...

          But yeah, I also wonder what would happen if the media would just stop dissecting every late-night bleat (as some commentators have decided to call his Truth Social posts) and start treating them as what they are (the ramblings of a deranged 79-year old) instead? But of course those ramblings now spill into other places too: plaques on the "presidential walk of fame" (https://eu.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/politics/2025/1...), letters to allies (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-letter...) etc.

          • joe_mamba 16 minutes ago

            >by doing more illegal shit?

            Who said anything about doing. He doesn't have to do anything other than bring it up all the time.

            The media loves this since it means more engagement farming and Trump knows this which is why he's doing it. ALong with things like "quiet piggy".

  • terespuwash an hour ago

    “Since the start of the parliamentary mandate, Meta has met 38 times with far-right MEPs”

    Hmmmm

    • joe_mamba an hour ago

      Far left EU MEPs complain about what far right are doing. So what else is new in politics?

      Do they also complain when they themselves meet with Meta, or is it an issue only when their growing opposition do it?

      You know the saying "For my friends everything, for my enemies, the law"?

      • Manfred 33 minutes ago

        The fight against “left” and “right” is just a narrative to gin up allegiance with certain groups.

        The only relevance to the article is that it indicates which parties have sided with the US administration to fight consumer’s digital rights.

        • joe_mamba 24 minutes ago

          Yeah that was my point, it doesn't matter if it's left or right, because the only ideology Meta et-al speak, is USD, so they will kiss the ring of whoever is in power at the present moment in EU, far left or far right. Same how many of them also kissed the ring of the CCP or Saudi Arabia while flying the pride flag in the west.

          They don't really care about those ideologies they preach, they just virtue signal however needed in order to appease the mobs and governments in power so they can be allowed to extract wealth.

    • instig007 26 minutes ago

      Is there a list of MEPs who are just right, without the far prefix?

  • gyanchawdhary 14 minutes ago

    I don’t see/share the HN outrage. If the EU wants to stay in the game, it has to be realistic about how regulation affects scaling and investment ... tweaking or rolling back parts of digital rules to compete with US/China tech isn’t “evil” .. it’s just how global competition works tbh.

    • xvector a minute ago

      Seriously, the EU needs to actually make it possible to build successful businesses in the EU. Starting any business there is such a nightmare, it's no wonder everyone takes their ideas to the US.

  • geremiiah an hour ago

    Somebody needs to investigate the EC for corruption.

  • StopDisinfo910 23 minutes ago

    The article paints a situation where the EU is caving in to US pressure and completely ignores the very real criticisms of the current regulatory push coming from the EU itself.

    A significant part of the Draghi report on European competitiveness is about how the Parliament has been stifling the ability of EU companies to efficiently compete under the weight of more and more complex laws.

    It's not very useful being the first to put in place complex regulations if nothing remains to regulate because every company has moved somewhere else.

  • jmyeet 19 minutes ago

    This has been my prediction for the last year: the EU is going to be forced to take the China approach of creating their own version of all US tech companies.

    The current US administration has done more to destroy US soft power on the world stage than any other in the country's history. The administration seems intent on destroying NATO. Personally I'm fine with that because it's a protection racket and a tool of imperialism. But this is going to materially hurt the US defense contractors who profit off of arms sales. That's really the turning point for any fascist regime: when you start screwing up the bag.

    US tech companies are also a tool of American foreign policy in pretty much the exact same way the administration accuses China of doing.

    So the EU needs to be responsible for its own security. And it's own platforms. But it may be too late for that as the EU itself may well splinter under the rise of far-right governments that are currently in place (eg Hungary) and only one election away from taking place (eg UK, Geermany maybe even France; even though the UK isn't in the EU I'm still counting it as part of Europe).

    Unfortunately the EU (and the UK) is too committed to the US imperial project, such as in the Middle East. People don't seem to realize just how connected things like imperialism and the erosion of your own rights at home are inextricably intertwined.

  • arneeiri 36 minutes ago

    Ironic if Trump's Greenland stunt ends up killing the Digital Omnibus. Hard to gift-wrap GDPR rollbacks for US tech giants while they're simultaneously being tariffed.

    • toyg 24 minutes ago

      Sadly, I fear the opposite might be true. Trump acts by creating leverage and then asking for something in return to renounce that leverage (in other contexts this could be described as blackmail or racketeering - "nice Greenland you have there...").

      Luckily, his reign of terror is not infinite. In November he'll be cut to size.

  • zerosizedweasle 41 minutes ago

    "Oxfam, the world-renowned advocacy group, issued a report ahead of the Davos event which showed that billionaire wealth rose by more than 16% last year, three times faster than the past five-year average, to more than $18 trillion. It drew on Forbes magazine data on the world’s richest people.

    Oxfam said the $2.5 trillion rise in the wealth of billionaires last year would be enough to eradicate extreme poverty 26 times over. Their wealth has risen by more than four-fifths since 2020, while nearly half the world’s population lives in poverty, the group said.

    The Trump administration has led a “pro-billionaire agenda,” the group said, through actions such as slashing taxes for the wealthiest, fostering the growth of AI-related stocks that help rich investors get richer, and thwarting efforts to tax giant companies."

    AI is killing humanity

  • seydor an hour ago

    Almost nobody in europe cares about these things. Nobody has gone out demonstrating for digital rights vs american companies. If we did we we would have already firewalled europe outside big tech.

    Why are these articles finding their way here? In europe , this is not news, never.

    • lucianbr an hour ago

      Conveniently sidestepping the discussion of "should we care". I don't know how many people care or not, but I think more would care if the situation and implications were better known. It's good that this is brought to attention, and to say "people don't know so let's not talk about it" is absurd.

    • pjc50 9 minutes ago

      People have been caring about this for 20+ years. I'll admit that it's a minority position, but Germans in particular get very upset about mass surveillance.

    • NalNezumi an hour ago

      >Why are these articles finding their way here? In europe , this is not news, never.

      ... Because this is hacker news and not euro news? This is pretty much on point both for tech topic and vague "hacker ethos" as a topic.

    • zecg 44 minutes ago

      > In europe , this is not news, never.

      That's just false. Example, here's a shitty tabloid in Croatia:

      https://www.24sata.hr/news/vrh-europske-komisije-mijenja-pra...

    • saubeidl 44 minutes ago

      Speak for yourself.

    • pbhjpbhj an hour ago

      I've been actively moving away from USA originated products. I'm happy to see alternatives being discussed. I really don't think it's moral to fund fascist states in this way, sorry.

      Yes, I'm still here, despite being told (paraphrasing) 'fuck off we don't want anyone from outside USA here'.

      • akramachamarei 36 minutes ago

        What does fascism mean to you, exactly?

      • vixen99 32 minutes ago

        Fascism: 'A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.'

        Interesting because doesn't every sort of democratic state try to be 'a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls'? Depends how stringent and usually not stringent enough for many on the Left and on the Right.

        When tempted to use the word 'fascism', is it not better to describe the issue with which one's concerned (maybe deeply) rather than using a fit-all word and take care not to devalue the significance of the word as it was, for instance, applied in WW2 to some of the appalling atrocities that occurred in that period and those we've seen reports of recently?

    • brazzy an hour ago
    • NotGMan an hour ago

      This. Outside of an extremely small minority no-one cares.