Now with Snowden revelations, Obama's expansion of mass surveillance, etc... USA has become the exact opposite to me, they embody a future I don't want to live in.
The worst part is that some EU countries start to become like them because they still think like when I was 16, "USA is progress" => "so we have to do like them" and that's how for eg France adopted "Loi sur le renseignement" which allows gov to do like what NSA's doing.
Now all that I want is finish my CS master and start working for Protonmail,Signal,Tor,Mozilla,Linux,... or whatever company/app/foundation that is trying to protect us.
The thing I'm afraid of is that EU will keep getting weaker in terms of privacy & rights like France because of the "terrorists will kill your children if you don't give us your data" propaganda.
I hope EU will understand that even outside the ethical & moral issues having strong laws on privacy is the only way we can compete with USA tech because it's the only thing we have they don't
I, too, had dreams of America being a beacon of progress and freedom. It was my nominal homeland but one I'd never experienced. I was proud of it and loved that other nations looked up to us.
But now that dream is dead. We're perfecting the surveillance state I was told would be impossible.
Now I look at Europe, and while I disagree with a great deal of its economic policies, I wonder if the grass just might be greener on the other side.
Which European countries have less domestic surveillance than the US?
Being in the EU allowed this[2] landmark case to happen, which forced the issue of US companies complying with EU privacy protections.
Sadly, I hadn't researched labour-laws in the US (or healthcare, or... well, many things). Seems like a bad deal, now - though a few of my friends have moved out there, I don't particularly envy them.
I'm an American and I find it troublesome and tiresome when people want to adopt the EU's way of doing things, just because that's how it's done over there.
I like that things are done differently in different places. It gives all of us a chance to see what things work and what things don't. The EU's privacy protections are something that I happen to think work much better than ours.
I'd love to see a "Silicon Valley of Europe" emerge as a competitor. We could see how things play out under the different ways of doing things.
What you call "complacency" is actually years of progress in international trade and cooperation going down the drain.
Yes, people eventually wake up, but sometimes it takes a war to do it. Indeed, everybody woke up after WWII.
What I believe instead is that nationalistic policies eventually lead to hunger and from my recollection, history seems to agree. Because we are all interdependent.
More on-topic: If the EU doesn't have software companies to rival those of the US, that's not because those US companies exist. If the EU is bad at software innovation, what makes you think we'll be any good at making clones?
Also, most companies that care about data security and are afraid of industrial espionage from the US have already switched after the Snowden revelations, especially given that the US government made it clear since then that non-citizens should not have an expectation for privacy. I doubt there are many companies left willing to make a switch to alternatives based on data security concerns.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more EU companies on the rise. And we already have startups developing in Berlin, London, Paris, etc. But I don't see the existence of US companies as being the problem.
Disclaimer: I am an EU citizen from Romania.
Nevertheless, I want to point out that there seem to be two large real-world counter-examples to your argument: Russia and China. Both have made live difficult (or impossible) for US tech companies and both now have successful homegrown alternatives (Yandex and Baidu to Google, YK and Sina Weibo to Facebook/Twitter) -- even though I would argue both countries are not exactly known for their Silicon-Valley-style startup culture.
The problem with many Internet businesses is that they are natural monopolies or "winner takes all" markets where it is very hard to compete against an entrenched incumbent. This is definitely true for social networking (because of the network effects that you need to be on the platform your friends are on) and I believe today also for Internet search (because of the enormous fixed cost of developing a competitive search algorithm and index and the very low marginal cost of each search query).
And I think this is where Europe's different startup culture really comes to bite: I strongly believe that EU companies are from a technical point of view just as capable of innovating as US companies. But they are more careful, less financed and also have much smaller home markets, all of which contribute to the fact that they are much slower at getting products to market. And in a "winner takes all" market, being slower means getting nowhere.
So, yes, I would say that the existence of these large US companies is one reason for a lack of large software companies in the EU. But (pre-Trump, at least) this is the beauty of international trade, no? You don't have to be good at everything. The US is good at producing world-class Internet companies (due to its startup culture focused on speed) while Europe is good at producing e.g. high-tech machinery (where probably being careful is more important than being fast). And there is nothing wrong with that - we use Google and Facebook and in turn the US buys our machines and in the end we are both better off than by having to duplicate each others' efforts ourselves (regardless of how good or bad we were at making clones).
Is this belief based on having studied historical precedent or axiomatic? I'm not an expert, but from what I know both the older European and newer Asian industrial powerhouses have all instituted protectionist policies and strong state/private sector ties in areas they perceived of strategic importance (e.g. the Korean chaebols or the Japanese zaibatsu/kairetsu). And although this did not always succeed (e.g. Japan's bet on Prolog based AI), as far as I can tell, it's the only thing that ever did work in an area where one's country was not already a natural leader.
The most obvious example right now is the Chinese IT industry as a whole. And then there's of course also Samsung.
Have you read Ha-Joon Chang's "Kicking away the ladder"? I haven't but the core thesis seems much more plausible in view of the historical facts I'm aware of than the neo-liberal mantra (googling finds http://akarlin.com/2009/10/kicking-away-the-ladder-review/ as a positive review that also contains links to critical reviews in the comments).
China. See Tencent, Baidu, ...
> Also, most companies that care about data security and are afraid of industrial espionage from the US have already switched
In my experience, no they haven't. Several government departments where I live use Google docs. Since they handle private information, I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I still maintain it's part of the 'complacency' we endure, because a lot of things are 'good enough', and when people are satisfied, they feel little motivation to right the wrongs that remain.
Like surveillance, skewed trade deals, privacy laws, the emerging of rivalling global powers (see China and Russia) and taking the internet and computers serious in general.
Oh and, if we can lift the global standard of living, then we don't need big border protection budgets, because people will have less motivation to migrate.
I sure hope we will be able to avoid a war. At least a war like the Second World War.
ps: that said, I can't wait for the U.S to kick him out.. he seems unfit to do anything.
It's usually used when quoting an original statement that's doubtful or knowingly incorrect
I don't know which term would be more appropriate to use, probably "pun intended"
"The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1] inserted after a quoted word or passage, indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription." (sic)
The danger is that, just like Obama, the President after Trump will decry what their predecessor did and then as soon as entering office extend and expand it.
...and stop trying to dismantle it from the inside because money and too much regulation. it's in chinese, russian and US interests for the EU countries to negotiate independently, but certainly not in europe's interest at large.
Past Europe, the superpowers are USA, Russia, China...
All the people in the controlling bodies (well at least the places that should be voted for. Voting for judges etc. is madness) in EU are appointed by the member nations (either by vote or appointed)
European Council: Heads of state of the member nations (president chosen by vote within)
European Commission: One member appointed by each country (so usually someone from the ruling coalition within each country). Sworn to represent the benefits of EU as a whole and not single countries. President proposed by the Council and voted on by the Parliament
European Parliament: Members chosen by vote from each country. President (speaker) voted within.
So both executive and legislative levels are voted in or representatives of a democratically chosen government. Looks like democracy to me.
And still that only applies to handling "a financial crisis" by giving aid to member state(s) and needs qualified majority (85% in this case so 24 out of 28 votes in both the Council and Commission). Basically how the Council has been setup is that you usually need a unanimous or 20 out of 28 votes to get anything done.
Those votes are only necessary for things like new member additions (which are indeed mostly what the council is for). I think this requires a mere majority, which presumably is equivalent to having a majority in the commission in practice.
But even if it were true, and the only power they have is to fund or defund member states' governments ... that's not a real limitation to their power.
And lastly, if all the power is in the hands of the executive, as it is in Europe, that does not constitute a modern democratic state.
The elections for EU Parliament are not taken seriously in most countries and have had extremely low turnout, by now it is full of right wing idiots from various countries.
You conveniently left out the various side channels that don't even formally exist as European institutions, such as the Troika that decided on the fate of Greece, or the regular meetings of the finance ministers of the Euro Zone, which have had tremendous influence on the fiscal politics of smaller member states. Not to mention the various measures to deal with the Euro crisis by the ECB with the approval of a few large member nations, that cleverly bypassed and sidestepped many treaties and the additional European financial institutions that were created.
For example the current Finnish representative is Jyrki Katainen who is the previous prime minister and his party (Kokoomus) is still a member in the ruling coalition. Even though he probably isn't the most liked person anymore (his prime minister era didn't go that well) he is still well liked within his own party and they probably traded some minister seat for getting him into the Commission. Shit is politics like always but I wouldn't go as far as say that the EU is undemocratic.
Also the ability to speak English isn't that important in EU level. All the big EU institutions are in Luxembourg or Brussels which pretty much makes French and German the main languages. Still there is plenty of translators available when needed.
If Germany wants to keep sending Günther Oettinger as their Commissioner then the only people you can blame are Merkel and her party. Again democracy. If it matters to you make it a point in your elections. I know most people don't as in my experience most people don't have a clue how the EU works. Many of my friends think the Commissioners are just appointed by some elite instead of being each country sending their own just like the head of state is in the Council. Still you can't call a system undemocratic just because people choose not to engage in the process.
Since the previous election, the Council does not pick the candidate itself. Rather it automatically proposes the Presidential candidate of the party that won the European Parliament elections. And each party selects their candidate before the election, and they also campaign and have debates.
What are you referring to specifically, the Marshall Plan? Because that would be quite a conspiracy theory. A Federalist Union in Europe was conceived of by an Italian named Altiero Spinelli.
The Marshall Plan was signed in 1948 and the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993.
https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/803...
However, having said this, governance is actually quite good. In my opinion, EU central powers actually correct many of the blunders that national politicians do. Not that it couldn't be better, but one must acknowledge EU institutions are net positive, and not bad at all. Europe is much much better with the EU than with disparate national governments
Iceland, with its 300'000 citizen? Or the EU, with 500'000'000 citizen, a GDP of 17 trillion?
The only way to police corporations is by having a state that is more powerful than them. And with corporations going multinational, superpowers are necessary.
A little hyperbolic, but true if you add a ton of caveats.
In the UK people have been subjected to a 25-year barrage of anti-EU sentiment from the tabloid press, that's frequently misleading or outright untrue. For example, the (entirely fabricated) front-page headline that the EU wanted to ban all bent bananas, and more recently that the EU wanted to ban bananas from being sold in bunches of more than 2 or 3. Retractions are published in small print on page 27.
Well, it may be about immigration but your bureaucracy point is precisely about bananas. The EU has been positioned by the UK media as being a pointless bureaucracy that obsesses about how bent bananas are... which is a huge charicature.
There are undoubtedly bureaucratic aspects to the EU but speaking in broad generalisations isn't useful.. they need to be discussed on a case by case basis.
> It's mainly about mass immigration.
Again, immigration is broadly speaking a problem because of a lack of investment in infrastructure. The immigration itself is a net benefit.
The UK economy is stronger with immigrants than without. Outside the EU the UK will actually require increased immigration to grow, rather than decreased.
[Edit: missed a point...]
>* People want nation states, no one voted for mass immigration. You can say racist all you want but that doesn't change the fact.*
What makes you so confident in speaking for what "people want"?
Clearly at least 48% of referendum voters disagree with you; saying "people want" when you're talking about a razor-thin majority (after a campaign packed with proven lies) seems like a huge overstatement.
Even amongst the 52% there are different groups. Some voted for soverignty, some because of fear of immigration, some out of anger against the political system, and some because they're just racist... for example YouGov polls measured that UKIP have double the national average of people who self-identify as having racist opinions, and that ~50% of UKIP voters support repatriation of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, which is a policy even the BNP dropped. I don't think you should hold any illusions about who the racist vote is allied with, so you should be very careful how you speak and think about immigration to avoid finding yourself standing on the wrong side of that line.
The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do. I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out. What's there to discuss?
Well no, it depends why you want it, doesn't it. There are racist reasons to want increased immigration controls and non-racist reasons to want it.
> You can't convince me with your blind agenda everyone is racist.
I didn't say everyone is racist, did I. I have no idea what a "blind agenda" is, but I'm not the one misrepresenting what's been said, so it seems less likely I'm the one peddling an agenda.
> Neither do I have to be careful. Why?
Because if you're not careful about the way you discuss immigration people might mistake your motivations as being racist. I assumed that wouldn't be desirable, your choice though obviously.
> The people don't see the country stronger with mass immigration, only socialists and maybe big businesses do.
So socialists aren't "the people". Ooookay, that's an interesting distinction.
To be honest though, "the people" you describe are wrong... you and I will have front-row seats as multi-nationals threaten to leave the UK and we have to drop corporation tax to encourage some of them to stay, as banks in the City of London lose their EU trading passports and leave for Paris, as the immigrant doctors and nurses propping up our under-invested NHS stop coming. A weak pound making imports much more expensive, causing inflation and increasing poverty. Increased tarrifs on 44% of our exports (the amount that goes to the EU) also sounds great... plenty of businesses will go bankrupt over that, meaning increased unemployment, reduced tax revenues, cuts to public services (or increased nation debt).
That'll all be fun. Loving how this stronger UK that "the people" see is sounding.
> I'm confident speaking about it because UK voted out.
52%, who were lied to during the campaign, some of whom would vote differently now. Some of whom have since died, and been replaced by young remain voters. Yes "the UK" voted to leave, just, but if you claim to speak for "the people" then you're clearly wrong.
> What's there to discuss?
Everything? For a start it looks like Scotland is as likely as not to leave the UK because of Brexit. Well done for that. End of a 300 year era.
Personally I'm doing what I can to stop Brexit, because it's insane.
it seems that for the OP anyone that is not a right wing person it is not a person.
I like his comment in Spanish when I said that I vote left: "less fight and more baths"
this is very true for a lot of right wing radicals independent of the country. it makes it easy for them to dismiss or in the extreme even kill other people because they're dehumanized and so any moral obligations that would normally be held against others just aren't. i'm quite sure muslim terrorist think exactly the same way.
Are you saying that 120.000 refugees in 24 countries is mass migration in the EU?
Sweden alone has gotten 100,000 applications.
So, you're admitting that you were wrong in your first claim
> 1.1 is definitely mass immigration
You have a very strange definition of mass.
> it's for the people of EU countries decide what they want.
Yes, because of that we have institutions in the EU.
> It's very obvious people don't want it, and they didn't elect the people who are making these decisions for them.
Yes, they did. Do you know how the EU works and how the institutions are elected or formed?
You can try all day convince me others about your "liberal" (since it's U.S based community, I use this stupid term) ideas and how you're right, I'm not, but the fact is people on independent EU states don't agree with you and in the end of the day that is what matters. That is why the EU project is about to be destroyed because so-called liberals deny problems and never listens to other side's arguments. Instead of improving and changing things, hard break up is the only way and this is what is happening.
It's time to pop out from your bubble.
Taking into account that I'm an Spanish living in Spain in a town with almost 30% of foreign population and that I have always voted leftist parties and I think that Merkel has been one of the worst leaders in the EU in decades it is clear that you not only don't know how the EU works but you have a very strange way to put labels on people and what the people in the EU thinks.
Your comment about "you can say racist all you want but that doesn't change the fact." says a lot
Time to move on and not waste the time
You're stretching the truth past breaking point here. Firstly, Oletros, said "elected or formed", so you're misrepresenting what was said and then arguing against that misrepresentation. Secondly, the Parliament is democratically elected, the Council consists of heads of state (also democratic), and the Commission is appointed by democratically elected member governments (so also democratic).
> You can try all day convince me...
Ah, so after having your 'alternative facts' challenged you're adopting the fingers-in-ears-la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you defence. Bravo. Bravo.
> It's time to pop out from your bubble.
The strongest support for Brexit came from comparatively isolated communities with little or no immigration. Cities, where people are exposed to a variety of cultures, tended to vote Remain. It seems pretty clear which group is better described as living in a bubble.
There is nothing "alternative" about my facts.
France will be next. Good luck telling the vast majority of the native population (because they are going to to be the ones voting for Le Pen) is racist. Your words have no meaning. Poland, eastern Europe doesn't want mass immigration from Muslims countries either. Look at what is happening it Czech Republic, Slovakia. The whole EU deal reminds them too much Soviet Union. The last "liberal" people are mass media, journalists, and Silicon Valley bubble that ignores what is happening around other people.
I've just explained how your comment stretched the truth to breaking point. You're welcome to continue denying it, instead of actually defending your position.
> There is nothing "alternative" about my facts.
These are some of the claims you've made that are verifiably and undeniably wrong.
1) Your claim to speak for "the people" is untrue, because in fact your opinions are only shared by some portion of a slim majority.
2) Your claim that "1.1 million people and since we have free movement in Schengen, it affects everyone" is nonsense, because (a) only a miniscule portion of those refugees will leave their country of asylum (where they have food and lodging) and travel to where they have nothing, and (b) the UK isn't even in the Schengen zone. Notably Germany's economy is doing very well having taken in 1.1 million refugees.
3) Your claim that EU institutions aren't democratically formed is obviously nonsense. You might not like the way they're structured, and fair enough, there are issues, but they most certainly are formed democratically... a mixture of direct & representitive formation.
4) Your claim that there's nothing racist about wanting to reduce immigration is clearly untrue. UKIP is disproportionately racist, according to YouGov data.
This is where you deflect from the fact that you're peddling falshoods by saying that "the UK voted to leave and that's that" and walk off in a huff.
Without mass immigration (I don't mean the last 2 years, I mean "normal" mass immigration) the EU would have lost slightly over 5% of it's population by now, and it would accelerate. The net numbers don't even tell the whole story, as lots of countries are now seeing net-negative growth even given mass immigration. Something like 10% of 20-30 year youths have left and have been replaced by these immigrants.
Now the numbers matter less than the reality, yes population would drop, but ... without mass immigration, without these poor Africans with little language knowledge the minimum wage in countries like Germany would be 50% higher or more. If you walk through a city like Berlin and look at restaurant staff, street cleaners, ... what do you see ? France ? Same thing (despite the government rhetoric I might add). The Netherlands ? Even worse. Without mass immigration these countries would have gone into Japan-style stagnation and perma-recession over a decade ago.
The funny thing is, of course this was only a delay. We are very close to the point where global numbers will start to drop, and frankly, population numbers are already dropping pretty much everywhere outside of sub-Saharan Africa (all sorts of fun facts come up. Do you know that the largest group of Christians will be all-black in less than a decade ? In two decades they will be easily double the next ethnicity (either white or Chinese). And "black" black, you know, with the massive lips, somewhat larger eyes, distinct difference in skin color on palms and soles, ... A black pope isn't nearly as far off as people think)
Now keep in mind what this does and does not mean : first and foremost it means more pensioners, less savings, and much less people involved in actual economic activity (already very noticeable in Western Europe).
Note that this is unfixable, for at least 30 years. If today every family suddenly decided to have seven kids, economic population would only start increasing in something like 20-30 years (because it takes a while to actually make 7 kids). We would still see all the effects of population decrease for a period that is probably half the remaining lifespan for most of us (in fact slightly more since kids are also dependents, also a drain on savings, ...)
Even with the total disastrous immigration Europe is now seeing, actual population growth in the EU is still muted at best. Eastern Europe, especially, is bleeding dry of people at an astonishing rate.
Having strong privacy regulations in the EU could create a market for this kind of products.
In some ways, the EU does have stronger data protection for it's citizens than the US. See for example the case where the ECJ ruled that the 'Safe Harbour' agreement was invalid because an Austrian law student[1][2] filed multiple complaints against Facebook's Dublin-based branch, essentially alleging that Facebook is a backdoor for US dragnet collection of EU citizens' (and others') data, which ultimately rendered the Safe Harbour invalid according to the ECJ.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/max-schrems-took-faceboo...
The EU has stronger data protection for its citizens in all ways I can think of, in what ways does the US have stronger data protection?
I'm an outsider looking in, but at least in regards to data storage and other provider services, I get to work with tons of independent providers across the EU every day. My experience is that there seems to be far more acceptance for all sorts of cloud and storage providers within the EU than I do with my North American clients, who tend to be seeking support primarily for their infrastructure that just supports their company, as opposed to providing a service to others.
I think there's a lot of good happening in this space and where such services can compete with the big three (Google, Amazon, Microsoft) is with having accessible and knowledgable engineers available. They're never going to compete on price, but service will just overall float most of these companies to the top of the list for customers looking for a place to rest their data.
So I think the will and the infrastructure is there - more than any point in modern history is it possible for an earnest start up to get a solid clientele, and having local options are important for reasons just like this - rapidly changing political climates shouldn't be able to have a strong impact on your users like this. There has to be some ability for a failover when the stroke of a pen suddenly makes holding data at one GPS coordinate illegal.
In general, I see a lot of cloud service providers across the EU - think of the marketing materials you've likely gotten from Microsoft, Amazon, or Google about moving from on-prem infrastructure to all cloud and that's basically what these companies are doing, just on a much smaller scale.
As far as I can tell, they compete on servie; as I opened with, none of them can beat the big 3's pricing, but there seems to be a huge market in just having a competent DBA that they can call up and talk to when necessary. The companies also seem to provide a legally compliant service with EU data retention policies.
Others tend to take more of cloud storage position or cloud backup solution for businesses with on-prem set ups looking to have a DR site handled by someone else.
The best I can really describe it as is that all of the infrastructure that the US locks up in Azure, AWS, and cloud.google gets distributed across smaller providers who can be generic "get small business' DB up and running somewhere safe) or can get super specific and deal with stuff like NHS patient data management and storage.
> This is an inspiring point of view for those of us who would like to do business internationally as well I think. Personally, I'm stuck on the idea that the Internet is capable of helping citizens transcend national barriers (and timezones) to live more meaningful lives not strictly defined by the pens of politicians.
There's a headache of international law to pay attention to with these things, but there's also a really rewarding amount of work if you're willing to take on the initial task. I've only been with my current work about half a year, but without exaggeration I've had the chance to see a few thousand different set-ups and it's quite remarkable how much you can do with a little time and knowledge.
Good luck with that. Europe doesn't provide the environment (neither culturally nor financially) needed for these types of companies to arise.
And if you want 'state planned' tech companies: What happened to the EU funded Google-killer again?
If Europe doesn't reform itself and makes it less punishing for people to start, grow, fail, start again businesses then Europe will be left behind.
And tbh. I don't believe Europe can reform. Because the problems are so deeply entrenched in European societies that it would take a herculean effort to change things. Something no one is willing to do.
So all we have left is old money industry. But that won't keep up as alive for ever...
But if things came to the worse, the EU would just have to emulate China.
China seems to manage just fine without Google, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon. Make life difficult for foreign competitors, and let the internal market take care of the rest. No need for a top down approach.
The thing is that most internet companies are big due to network effects, not because the underlying technology is hard to replicate. Ban Facebook in the EU, and we would have a new version in a few months. Ditto for Twitter. Google is a bit more challenging, but it would be possible to get a 'goodish' clone going in a short while.
(The same would not be the case for Intel, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Altera, etc... These companies do have something that is hard to replicate, and goes beyond network effects).
I think a large part of the success of US tech companies is the large size of the domestic market[1], which means startups can reach new customers much more easily to who speak the same language, use the same currency and so on. For example, if you want to do business in let's say the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, you have to deal with the British pound, the Euro, the Swedish Krona, the Danish Krone and the Norwegian Krone, and have staff who can speak English, German, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian. Not to mention the different laws and customs in each country. There are less exit opportunities partially because (for example) a German company flush with cash is less likely to be aware of some Swedish company that is growing like a rocket and would make a good acquisition target (made up example). Whereas in the US, many professionals are likely reading the same news and tech sources, will speak the same language as the company they are looking at acquiring and use the same currency. Not to mention if a startup captures 1% of the market in Sweden or wherever, it's a much smaller userbase than 1% of the US market.
[1] Point number 8 in PG's excellent essay on the topic: http://paulgraham.com/america.html (I would argue that points 8 and 9 are most relevant.)
[1] https://www.itic.org/news-events/techwonk-blog/arguing-again...
Its no wonder that the 1984 novel is flying of the shelves now.
;-P
It seems the only way to win around here is to emphasize the economical benefits of independent and strong privacy-oriented commercial organizations. That however would probably involve bribing politicians to "agree" with you.
Yeah, I know. I let desperation creep inside of me but when you see everybody around you being OK with outrageous violations of basic human rights, that tends to happen. :(
That's why we dont have a Silicon Valley in the EU.
Its a mentality problem inside the investor space to only put money into "safer" bets not moon-shots.
We are US based, but provably private cloud storage is the thesis of our company. All data is encrypted on the client machine, the keys stay on the client machine, and then the encrypted data is remotely stored across about 50 providers (using erasure coding, the actual redundancy overhead is relatively small) to minimize the impact that any single provider or even any single continent of providers can have on your data's accessibility or uptime.
It's also 100% open source.
I'm not sure why it seems harder for companies to take off in the EU. It does seem like funding is harder to come by here, but to be honest it seems like it ought to be _easier_ to start here than in the US. If I fail in most EU countries, I'm not worried about dying in a gutter like I am if I fail in the US.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-d...
Yes we do. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Every country has limits on what you can say (incl. USA). Perhaps you're just annoyed that Nazis aren't allowed called Holocaust victims liars?
I was more thinking along the lines of immunity from National Security Letters[1], which could be marketed to companies or individuals who want an extra layer of privacy guarantee.
For example, here is a quote from Dropbox's 2016 Transparency report[2]:
"We believe that those who use online services have a right to know if the government requests their data, and that service providers have a right to notify them of these requests. Often, though, requests for user data are accompanied by court orders preventing Dropbox from providing notice."
An EU-based Dropbox clone could market this as a unique selling point, that the above doesn't apply. Swiss banking for your online storage, if you will.
They always talk big about democracy and freedom of speech but we all know that it isn't quite like that in practice. (see: hate speech)
Personally I prefer this freedom than being able to legally spout racist, inciting garbage or to deny the holocoust.
Or having some malicious person selectively edit what you said? ("Captain Zapp said, 'Personally I prefer... to deny the holocaust'. Censor him!")
Don't assume that restrictions on free speech will always be used in good faith against the targets they "should" be used against. These things have a way of expanding their reach. They can reach you sooner than you think.
Disclaimer: Not affiliated, though sometimes hang around in same circles as some that work there.
I actually did some research on Owncloud hosting, turns out there's a whole bunch of providers that offer free consumer tier hosting[1], I haven't heard of any of them[1].
AFAIK most core developers of owncloud left that boat a while ago to continue working on the software in a more sensible way.
What?
- German comedian writes an insulting, profane poem about Erdogan; is prosecuted (at Turkey's behest) for insulting a foreign leader [1]
- Dutch state enforcing jail sentences for lese majeste [2]
Wrong? Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech".
Article 5, GG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.ht...
> (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
Please note that I said prosecuted, not convicted, and I said prosecuted for insulting a foreign leader, not for speech. No such law against insulting a foreign leader exists in the US (and now as a result of this provocation it no longer does in Germany).
In this case, it’d have been prosecuted as libel/slander/defamation (as only untrue statements designed to hurt the reputation of a foreign leader can be prosecuted in Germany anyway).
You’d have the same case in the US.
Absolute free speech can have real consequences, here's a sad example from the Rwandan Genocide (copied from Wikipedia):
> The Power groups also believed that the national radio station, Radio Rwanda, had become too liberal and supportive of the opposition; they founded a new radio station, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC), which broadcast racist propaganda, obscene jokes and music, becoming very popular throughout the country.[89] One study finds that approximately 10% of the overall violence during the Rwandan genocide can be attributed to this new radio station.
The US doesn't have absolute free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/crimi...
If you were to read, well, any source posted since then, you'd find that it was found that he was actually protected on appeal by the ECHR freedom of expression (aka freedom of speech) and freedom of religion.
Not that this is false (I have no knowledge either way), but... spinning it this way, like people are to blame for the costs of protecting them from violent retaliation against their speech, feels distasteful to me.
Just like freedom of movement doesn't grant you the right to get into any bank vault, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to harm.
What about features where personal harm are traded for societal harm? (i.e. most politics) Can we discuss those?
Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial.
Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
Now, saying something like "Disabled people are the scum of the earth and should be eradicated" would probably fall under hate speech laws in some jusidictions.
Note the qualitative difference of the statements.
Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech".
QED
Saying "I hate the left" is not hate speech, as politics is meant to affect you — it is meant to affect the whole world, after all.
Saying "I hate muslims" is hate speech: practicing Islam is not meant to affect you. That doesn't mean you can't discuss it however: a discussion is not a verbal attack. You can even say "I hate the Jehovah's witnesses that knock on my door", as the group you are referring to directly affects you.
I won't disclose my personal views, but this is usually what people mean when they say that they hate Muslims, at least according to my experience after talking to them and trying to understand where the problem is. I am yet to see a single person who claims to hate nonpractising moderate Muslims who openly condemn everything listed above – but not only on words, while secretly admiring, liking or even having nothing against any parts of it.
Although your real argument here is not about hate speech; it relates to proselytism, which definitely requires a legal framework.
No, it's not.
Edit: Big surprise that this got a quick downvote with no comment. Really helpful feedback.
Either cite some law supporting the statement in question, preferably one that distinguishes the actual 'line' not to be crossed, or recognize that saying you hate $GROUP is not the same as hate speech, at least in any sane place.
What's next? If I proclaim that I hate dogs, is that hate speech AND animal cruelty?
FWIW I love dogs, and my original short comment was a comment about free speech and sane limits on it. If you think it was a dig at Muslims, or that they're even relevant to the point, your reading comprehension sucks. I don't care what religion you are, it's none of my business as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect anyone else. I also haven't bought into the 'Muslim bogey-man' narrative, if that affects your interpretation.
Whoa, that's already extremely arguable.
<jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem, and saying I _think_ that <jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem.
The same goes for insulting police officers. You can report your state of mind, but you can't use a descriptive tense, you need to explicitly state that it is your opinion.
I haven't ever been in trouble of this sort of thing, and I also think that almost every human knows when real hate-speech is being bandied about. But I do know that a few years back the courts in the Netherlands ruled that if you tell a police officer: 'you're a fag' you can't defend yourself by saying it was just an opinion.
That is far more worrisome then me then the supposed reincarnation of Hitler in orange form.
Christ, if Hitler isn't the new devil, capable of possessing people at random and these aren't the new Salem witch trials, I don't know what is.
My point is - EU does not enforce this. Individual countries do, and they follow their own rules.
Hate speech however is a bit of a weird topic. I am kind of extreme side on anti-censorship and agree that this is a problem (despite it's practical implications are minor - currently). I wished that people could say things like "our democracy is strong enough" and a person claiming the holocaust didn't happen would simply ridicule themselves, just like someone saying the earth is flat.
However, one also has to say that the effects of hate speech in the EU (likely to be ruining your career and similar things) are really close to the the effects of certain political statements in the US, like when you openly mention good thing about communism, speak badly about soldiers/veterans, don't act like the American flag is sacred, etc.
That said I think a good measure of a society is whether you can make "bad jokes" without fear. Usually actions against those are the beginning of an authoritarian system. I don't talk about actual bullying of non-public figures here. That may be coming close to an attack, when it goes into the direction of driving people to suicide or so, even though that's really far sometimes and people of course also need some skins if they consider themselves to be emancipated.
Anyway, I think free speech is way too often attacked for really minor reasons, when it should be withstand even rather good reasons, or else we cannot call it a right of the citizens of a country.
Also I think that people should focus on the now, even when they try to learn from the past. Currently action is taken against people that talk like Nazi Germans from 70+ years ago, when people that act in a similar, but maybe technologically more modern way are completely under the radar.
... I'm kinda OK with that?? That's the hill you want to die on?
Intentional spoonerism?
Even in areas where they do match up tech-wise Auto, Nokia, Airbus/Ariane etc maybe they need a Elon Musk type to do some ass kicking.
Won't happen when all of Europe keeps raising taxes and the US lowers theirs.
Most creators like to keep their rewards and distribute it at their discretion, not have over half of it stolen from them by force.
I wasn't aware of Privacy Shield before now, but after reading a little bit about it[3], it reads like something that only gives a fig leaf of protection to EU citizens.
[1] http://paulgraham.com/america.html
[2] https://protonmail.com/
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/citizen...