|
Top-level
 @feliks and one could say that US weak competition regulation puts US emerging companies at a disadvantage, for example. It's very easy for Big Tech to swallow them or price them out of their market (and then hike the prices once the competition is gone). Which leads to a monopolized or oligopolized market with a handful of "too big to fail" companies, instead of a market that is healthy, diverse, resilient. I like the EU approach better. 3 comments
@feliks I am not an economist and I would not venture to characterize the broad economic approach one way or another. But it's pretty clear that privacy regulations are stronger in the EU. It's pretty clear that other tech-related regulations are stronger in the EU. To me that approach amounts to putting digital human rights above corporate interests, at least in *some* (important) cases. And when I hear someone say that that puts EU companies at a disadvantage, I recoil. |
Gregory's Server
@rysiek
i think it's more relevant to compare market sizes and prioritize based on that (see last post above).
while i also would like to believe that a market as positive as you described it does not relate to monopolies or oligopolies, i see the opposite. i see an example in common ownership for leading global asset managers. while it's existent and critizised scholarly it might impact market stability negatively
how would you characterize the EU approach?