I think mostly people condemn the eu for its attempt at censorship.

The eu would actually have to have a big tech company consumers actually interface with in order to fine them -besides just hardware.

They have a suspicious lack of coup attempts in the last decade.

Is the idea that it would have been really good if the person who organized the insurrection also had the ability to censor people who disagreed with him?

Are you paying attention to their current argument about why it was legal to conspire to overthrow the government?

Are you paying attention to how ridiculous that sounds? I voted for Biden and this sort of hyperbole makes me think some of what trump says is right.

The hyperbole of Trump claiming his conspiracy is covered by the first amendment?

That's basically fact. Perhaps you derailed somewhere. Free speech is not absolute unless you are the king.

Ok man whatever you say. I’m just saying while you think you’re making some major point here it’s just pushing people away because it sounds so ridiculous.

The manipulators mostly reach for low-effort high-exposure interventions. They wouldn't actually engage in honest debate.

I think the stance is that while what the EU does is good for the consumer it's annoying as hell for American tech companies to be assessed billion dollar fines all the time. If the punishment was "comply in 180 days or we'll suspend your business charter" I think you'd see a lot more support.

If they obeyed the rules to begin with they wouldn't be fined. It's literally a calculated risk by the big tech companies that the cost of compliance will be less than the profits during the time of non-compliance.

Sadly it pays off. The biggest ones are the worst. Windows has been rewriting boot loaders and bullying smaller companies with SmartScreen Application Reputation. Android has forced everyone through FCM (or suffer degraded experience). Apple adds software glitches if you replace iPhone parts.

Where are the regulators? Asleep, underfunded, or being paid off to close their eyes. And then, these companies get to write the laws through lobbying.

Not sure why the proposed alternative is better to anyone at all.

> If the punishment was "comply in 180 days or we'll suspend your business charter"

The punishment is generally "comply in 180 days [actually it's usually measured in years] or we'll fine you". And they often don't comply, and then get fined and sometimes end up complying.

Why would your proposal be better?

Because the fines are just priced in as cost of doing business. They don't actually change anything.

But the very article we are discussing shows that it does change things, though?

It’s the exception that confirms the rule.

It is just a culture difference basically.