EU isn't ever going to have its own "tech" industry as long as US has full access to EU markets and IMHO the ChatControl thing is totally unrelated.
Anyone who has a "tech" industry besides US has it thanks to trade barriers and embargoes because otherwise doesn't make sense to have it. The product doesn't have a considerable marginal cost to distribute, doesn't make sense to have it made in more than one place. 50 US states don't have EU regulations and yet everything is still happening in SV only, the rest of the "tech" in US is about as developed as in the rest of the world and they all feed into SV one way or another. Also, there's no way for competition as the capital in US(which can come from Europe, Arabs etc. too) can provide the services at loss for 10-20 years until drives everyone out of business.
EU tried to be open for business and have sovereignty through things like privacy and data control laws but the end result was that whoever is worth their salt goes to SV and sell it in EU from there and when tangental industries like VW or Mercedes need top talent for their software there's no one left or those who are still in EU are not doing things that transfers well into their niche.
ChatControl, IMHO is just some career move of some politicians from the ultra low corruption small northern countries where people trust the government way too much. They appear to believe that they can solve some issues with it. Not that different from all the governments who want control and each one wants as much control as possible.
I think the age control attempts are much more interesting and consequential. Why? Because bots don't have age. If implemented in a way that preserves anonymity while ensuring that the things are written by a real person(or at least has someone responsible for it even if its AI written) it can actually solve the bot problem and social manipulation problems like people from other countries pushing an agenda that doesn't actually have organic roots in the society.
Anyway, the issues are real and the risk are real and I think its a good idea to seek methods to mitigate the risks while keeping in mind that even if you currently like the government in few years the people who you don't like might be in power so, be careful.
>EU isn't ever going to have its own "tech" industry as long as US has full access to EU markets and IMHO the ChatControl thing is totally unrelated.
It's even simpler - EU does not foster any form of framework for growing any industry, they incentivize things that were already successful elsewhere and were found necessary to have in EU. It's all top-down in form of EU grants/benefits/whatevers.
And even then - those grants are are tied up with basically pre-planned prince2 style project management that makes deviating from them hard, and sometimes impossible. Purchases have to be pre-planned, for almost anything.
>ChatControl, IMHO is just some career move of some politicians from the ultra low corruption small northern countries where people trust the government way too much. They appear to believe that they can solve some issues with it. Not that different from all the governments who want control and each one wants as much control as possible.
Yes but no - it comes from Denmark, which has a lot of issues with overstepping legal bounds when it comes to data gathering and privacy. It seems more like attempt to legalize those using excuse of "EU forced us to adopt it :)".
>I think the age control attempts are much more interesting and consequential. Why? Because bots don't have age. If implemented in a way that preserves anonymity while ensuring that the things are written by a real person(or at least has someone responsible for it even if its AI written) it can actually solve the bot problem and social manipulation problems like people from other countries pushing an agenda that doesn't actually have organic roots in the society.
I think it's quite the opposite - identity fraud will become more profitable, while "open" internet will be infantilized into child-safe zone. Full of bots, but now any real form of communication will have your full doxx attached to it - doesn't matter if visible or not, just possiblity of it is enough. You will self censor yourself just in case.
Also all of those systems do not preserve anonymity, and basically are another mass surveillance tool.
It is just another step towards ChatControl, one surveils, other forces self-censorship.
While reverse would make sense - make children only internet that's actively monitored, accessible only via government issued smartcard/e-sim/thingy, while leaving it up to parents if their child should or should not access real internet.
EU doesn't have top down control, in fact EU has very little control over anything and that's why its ineffective in its current form despite having enormous wealth as a block. All these initiative this initiative that are, IMHO, just political FOMO and I don't expect them to amount to much.
EU doesn't have the capacity to plan stuff, even under grave danger from the war in Ukraine EU barely coordinates building some bombs. EU is able to bite only when each country is coordinated well enough to implement some laws, i.e. GDPR thing bites through the regulators of each country and not through EU. If EU eventually becomes a state then thing can change but thats not the case at the moment.
EU is not a communist state and doesn't have a top down planning, its a coordination centre for 27 free market countries and its up to the EU capitalist and engineers to come up with technology and investment. They actually do, that's why EU is huge exporter of stuff. Believe it or not, there's more in this world than coding, there are all kinds of engineers that deal with atoms and electricity.
However the "tech" doesn't flourish in Europe because doesn't make economic sense. US has full access to EU markets, they already have the know how and capital concentration, so why bother to re-invent the wheel in EU? Just go do it in US or do work for the US companies cementing their position even further.
US can afford not to have much regulations over the "tech" because they have the HQs and all the important people in SV. The moment some company that's not from US becomes big they take it down. TikTok for example, they forced a sale to fking Oracle, US doesn't allow foreign communications on its land. Its a semi-open knowledge that US government is working with those "tech" companies to control its own population and interests.
I don't know, if the US way of doing this is the better one, maybe EU should just force all the US "tech" companies to sell to EU owners just like with TikTok. Then get rid of all these regulations and just summon the local people when things go bad, like the "wrong" ideas spread like the way it happened on TikTik with Israel-Palestine conflict. The US way is like, oh you are not cooperating and not pushing the right agenda? Oh that's fine but too bad the new employment rules will hurt you and you can forget about this datacenter permit thing.
At this level it really is a case of purpose-of-the-system-is-what-it-does. The EU is clearly not interested in building up a tech sector. Factions in the EU, yes. EU as a block, no. They've shown less than no interest; the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go. Nice place to live. Software companies tend to migrate to the US.
I suspect that in the halls of power they would rather interpret "digital sovereignty" as a state where they, the sovereigns, have power in the digital world to mess with EU citizens online lives. It seems very optimistic to think that the EU is suddenly going to get interested in supporting software companies. Even philosophically, why bother changing suddenly just to do something they can ask the Americans to do? Economies require specialisation, everyone can't do everything.
It isn't even a bad thing that the EU doesn't have a thriving software ecosystem but for the fact it appears to be driven by governmental hostility to freedom. Good companies can come from the US. Bad companies can come from the EU. They already have a good FOSS ecosystem. The only problem is the EU seems to be more likely to bring in something like chat control and beat down anyone who achieves enormous success.
> They've shown less than no interest; the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go.
That last part is certainly true, and the big tech companies in the US and their constant abuse of customers show why we don't want it. We just need a different type of market here. We should lock out the American companies more. We can't play on the same field because we have very different values. The US care only about money, we care more about ethics.
If the market wants to go there the market is wrong and we need to curtail it. Having unrestricted capitalism isn't a European value.
The creation of a monopoly is always desirable for the company owners, so tech isn't unique in this respect.
I think the main distinguishing feature is that big IT companies are new, so the bad outcomes of tech monopolies are only now being recognised and so competition authorities have been slow to act.
Imagine one actor in the tech space charges $/whatever which is slightly cheaper than the next nearest rival. Everyone flocks to that company and they become fabulously wealthy. Because of that effect the market tends to centralise. Another way to look at it is some company is the best at whatever, everyone wants to go with that company and it is technically possible for that company to serve everyone. So there is the same tendency for companies to get very large. Obviously oversimplifying, there are a lot of ways the tendency manifests. Metcalfe's law and all that.
That applies less in the physical world because distance is a factor. If there is some hairdresser in Silicon Valley who does amazing haircuts I'm still not going to go there to get my hair done. But I'm happy to watch YouTube which is ultimately being coordinated from nearby to that hairdresser.
The issue is, based on how things have actually played out, the EU is not the place to be if you're a hyper-efficient company serving a huge number of people with huge capital reserves. I assume the tax system is the root cause.
>the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go.
All unregulated markets over time tend to strive for monopoly, as it takes just a short period in which a dominant faction emerges - which kills the capitalist system. Your statement is pure tautology.
EU is hostile to tech and innovation due to top-down approach and working against market forces for sure, but market forces aren't morally good, they just exist - there's no virtue in them.
What needs to change is a shift from top-down approach to one where they setup a framework for competitive AND profitable industry. But this will never happen - EU is too rife with internal conflicts of interest between countries as they are also competing with each other.
It is stuck in-between trade union and federation, and reaps downsides of both.
> In cyberspace only individuals can have sovereignty.
If you set the sovereignty at the lowest hardware level, it doesn't seem right to call it a space: what you are postulating is a set of unconnected nodes. To a get a network you will need individuals to give up some of their sovereignty to a shared entity that decides things like what protocol to use.
> It is time for Europe to develop a coherent tech strategy. Can we build digital sovereignty while simultaneously undermining the protocols that enable it?
We should. The problem is that politics is messy and with lots of opposing views. See the GDPR versus this Chat Control absurdity. But _principles_ are those that stick, and I think that the principle that communication should be private _always_ should become sort of constitutional within the EU. We are the ones that vote, we are the ones that need to signal that we don't want to give up privacy for whatever "security" some, completely uninformed, want to promise.
Anybody actually living in EU is absolutely tired of hearing "It is time for Europe to..." It's the standard sentence starter for every "bold proposal" for a decade+. Europe will keep fumbling around. The fragile unity that propelled the sweeping changes of the 90s/00s had fallen apart.
>we don't want to give up privacy for whatever "security" some, completely uninformed, want to promise
You'd be surprised how easily people give up their rights for the made up security promises, without putting up a fight.
Let's go through a short list I experienced during my lifetime in my country, off the top of my head.
-2001 Invasive airport checks after 911
-2015 mandatory registration with ID of prepaid SIM cards after islamist terrorist attacks
-2020-2022 mandatory COVID vaccine ID, to be able travel and enter establishments
None of these saw any kind of major disruptive backlash against the government to convince them to backtrack, so chat control and digital ID to access the internet and comment online is only a matter of time, all it needs is another black swan or even a false flag event.
Sure there was the famous trucker protests in Canada against mandatory COVID pass, but the government cracked down on that, so your protests against systems of control are irelevant. Chat control is inevitably gonna happen with or without your approval.
I’m still not sure what exactly the trucker protest people wanted (before they got co-opted by a bunch of additional groups with all their additional grievances). It was the U.S. requiring Canadian truckers to be vaccinated and have documentation if they wanted to cross the border. The federal government was responsible for making these documents available for truckers who wanted to do so.
> -2020-2022 mandatory COVID vaccine ID, to be able travel and enter establishments
Imo this one was slightly different, because it was (at least where I live) a temporary emergency measure with an end date as a response to an active crisis.
But I agree that people can get blinded by security theater.
> As for corona, it's more or less common knowledge by now that unless you're 60+ a common cold is more dangerous.
That's a lie. The reality is that Covid-19 is massively more fatal than the ordinary flu [1]:
> We take the comparison between Covid-19 and flu seriously by asking how many years of influenza and pneumonia deaths are needed for cumulative deaths to those two causes to equal the cumulative toll of the Covid-19 pandemic between March 2020 and February 2023—that is, three years of pandemic deaths. We find that in one state alone—Hawaii—three years of Covid-19 mortality is equivalent to influenza and pneumonia mortality in the three years preceding the Covid-19 pandemic. For all other states, at least nine years of flu and pneumonia are needed to match Covid-19; for the United States as a whole, seventeen years are needed; and for four states, more than 21 years (the maximum observable) are needed.
The reduction in CFR since 2022-ish can mostly be attributed to vaccines [2], but unfortunately it turns out that said vaccine protection only lasts for about 6 months - that is why we are seeing COVID "summer waves" [3] which hasn't been a thing for influenza... people get vaccinated in autumn and winter, which lessens the impact of Covid during the winter time, but once that partial immunity expires cases go up again.
> -2020-2022 mandatory COVID vaccine ID, to be able travel and enter establishments
That one makes sense for any government valuing the lives of its citizens. COVID was one hell of a nasty bug for healthy people, and for those not in good health it often meant death.
COVID cost the lives of at least 7 million people worldwide, of which 1.2 million were in the USA. "The cost of <<freedom>>" one might say if one were absolutely cynical, simply because of the massive difference in deaths per capita to just about every other large developed country [1].
And that doesn't include the cost of lost productivity due to people being out sick, struck by Long COVID/MECFS or having to be caretaker for affected people.
Ministers are making laws for themselves, especially their police services.
Montesquieu warned about the seperation of powers between the legislator and the executive, but it seems that it is still not the case at the EU level.
The truly mind-blowing thing to me is that chat control literally goes against the constitutions of a lot of EU countries. Pooling sovereignty is one thing. Voting for regulations that you then need to implement as local laws where those local laws would directly contradict the constitution is something else.
I don’t assume malice where stupidity suffices though.
For the vast majority of cases, it's malicious compliance by websites to make people believe the issue of the banner when the problem is the data collection.
And did it achieve the desired effect? I don't think so. But it caused banner fatigue and insane amount of cognitive load while not improving privacy for probably +90% of people.
Desired by whom? At this point the desire of EU legislators is to make sure that EU never gets any chance of success in the tech field. Cookie banners do serve this goal well.
This demonstrates the incompetence in tech in EU. Either she wants to enforce laws for the common people and not for the elite, or she is incompetent enough to believe that deleting text messages affects storage.
We build robust encryption, then comes the naive-ignorant wave of "why do we need this? let's remove it" because policymakers don't grasp the extent of it, nor have any clue how it works and why.
EU isn't ever going to have its own "tech" industry as long as US has full access to EU markets and IMHO the ChatControl thing is totally unrelated.
Anyone who has a "tech" industry besides US has it thanks to trade barriers and embargoes because otherwise doesn't make sense to have it. The product doesn't have a considerable marginal cost to distribute, doesn't make sense to have it made in more than one place. 50 US states don't have EU regulations and yet everything is still happening in SV only, the rest of the "tech" in US is about as developed as in the rest of the world and they all feed into SV one way or another. Also, there's no way for competition as the capital in US(which can come from Europe, Arabs etc. too) can provide the services at loss for 10-20 years until drives everyone out of business.
EU tried to be open for business and have sovereignty through things like privacy and data control laws but the end result was that whoever is worth their salt goes to SV and sell it in EU from there and when tangental industries like VW or Mercedes need top talent for their software there's no one left or those who are still in EU are not doing things that transfers well into their niche.
ChatControl, IMHO is just some career move of some politicians from the ultra low corruption small northern countries where people trust the government way too much. They appear to believe that they can solve some issues with it. Not that different from all the governments who want control and each one wants as much control as possible.
I think the age control attempts are much more interesting and consequential. Why? Because bots don't have age. If implemented in a way that preserves anonymity while ensuring that the things are written by a real person(or at least has someone responsible for it even if its AI written) it can actually solve the bot problem and social manipulation problems like people from other countries pushing an agenda that doesn't actually have organic roots in the society.
Anyway, the issues are real and the risk are real and I think its a good idea to seek methods to mitigate the risks while keeping in mind that even if you currently like the government in few years the people who you don't like might be in power so, be careful.
>EU isn't ever going to have its own "tech" industry as long as US has full access to EU markets and IMHO the ChatControl thing is totally unrelated.
It's even simpler - EU does not foster any form of framework for growing any industry, they incentivize things that were already successful elsewhere and were found necessary to have in EU. It's all top-down in form of EU grants/benefits/whatevers.
And even then - those grants are are tied up with basically pre-planned prince2 style project management that makes deviating from them hard, and sometimes impossible. Purchases have to be pre-planned, for almost anything.
>ChatControl, IMHO is just some career move of some politicians from the ultra low corruption small northern countries where people trust the government way too much. They appear to believe that they can solve some issues with it. Not that different from all the governments who want control and each one wants as much control as possible.
Yes but no - it comes from Denmark, which has a lot of issues with overstepping legal bounds when it comes to data gathering and privacy. It seems more like attempt to legalize those using excuse of "EU forced us to adopt it :)".
>I think the age control attempts are much more interesting and consequential. Why? Because bots don't have age. If implemented in a way that preserves anonymity while ensuring that the things are written by a real person(or at least has someone responsible for it even if its AI written) it can actually solve the bot problem and social manipulation problems like people from other countries pushing an agenda that doesn't actually have organic roots in the society.
I think it's quite the opposite - identity fraud will become more profitable, while "open" internet will be infantilized into child-safe zone. Full of bots, but now any real form of communication will have your full doxx attached to it - doesn't matter if visible or not, just possiblity of it is enough. You will self censor yourself just in case.
Also all of those systems do not preserve anonymity, and basically are another mass surveillance tool.
It is just another step towards ChatControl, one surveils, other forces self-censorship.
While reverse would make sense - make children only internet that's actively monitored, accessible only via government issued smartcard/e-sim/thingy, while leaving it up to parents if their child should or should not access real internet.
> EU does not foster any form of framework for growing any industry
You are right. Pharma, automotive, financial in EU all come from the US. Companies like Nokia, Siemens, Bosch, BMW... all american names.
EU doesn't have top down control, in fact EU has very little control over anything and that's why its ineffective in its current form despite having enormous wealth as a block. All these initiative this initiative that are, IMHO, just political FOMO and I don't expect them to amount to much.
EU doesn't have the capacity to plan stuff, even under grave danger from the war in Ukraine EU barely coordinates building some bombs. EU is able to bite only when each country is coordinated well enough to implement some laws, i.e. GDPR thing bites through the regulators of each country and not through EU. If EU eventually becomes a state then thing can change but thats not the case at the moment.
EU is not a communist state and doesn't have a top down planning, its a coordination centre for 27 free market countries and its up to the EU capitalist and engineers to come up with technology and investment. They actually do, that's why EU is huge exporter of stuff. Believe it or not, there's more in this world than coding, there are all kinds of engineers that deal with atoms and electricity. However the "tech" doesn't flourish in Europe because doesn't make economic sense. US has full access to EU markets, they already have the know how and capital concentration, so why bother to re-invent the wheel in EU? Just go do it in US or do work for the US companies cementing their position even further.
US can afford not to have much regulations over the "tech" because they have the HQs and all the important people in SV. The moment some company that's not from US becomes big they take it down. TikTok for example, they forced a sale to fking Oracle, US doesn't allow foreign communications on its land. Its a semi-open knowledge that US government is working with those "tech" companies to control its own population and interests.
I don't know, if the US way of doing this is the better one, maybe EU should just force all the US "tech" companies to sell to EU owners just like with TikTok. Then get rid of all these regulations and just summon the local people when things go bad, like the "wrong" ideas spread like the way it happened on TikTik with Israel-Palestine conflict. The US way is like, oh you are not cooperating and not pushing the right agenda? Oh that's fine but too bad the new employment rules will hurt you and you can forget about this datacenter permit thing.
That’s a fairly sensible writeup.
The issue with these types of battles, is that each side tends to resort to extreme hyperbole.
That basically gives the other side ammunition for wholesale dismissal.
It’s important (IMNSHO) to have reasonable, sane discussions, and avoid falling into the “screeching monkey” trap.
It tends to happen when people discuss abstract topics. Interesting phenomenon.
At this level it really is a case of purpose-of-the-system-is-what-it-does. The EU is clearly not interested in building up a tech sector. Factions in the EU, yes. EU as a block, no. They've shown less than no interest; the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go. Nice place to live. Software companies tend to migrate to the US.
I suspect that in the halls of power they would rather interpret "digital sovereignty" as a state where they, the sovereigns, have power in the digital world to mess with EU citizens online lives. It seems very optimistic to think that the EU is suddenly going to get interested in supporting software companies. Even philosophically, why bother changing suddenly just to do something they can ask the Americans to do? Economies require specialisation, everyone can't do everything.
It isn't even a bad thing that the EU doesn't have a thriving software ecosystem but for the fact it appears to be driven by governmental hostility to freedom. Good companies can come from the US. Bad companies can come from the EU. They already have a good FOSS ecosystem. The only problem is the EU seems to be more likely to bring in something like chat control and beat down anyone who achieves enormous success.
> They've shown less than no interest; the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go.
That last part is certainly true, and the big tech companies in the US and their constant abuse of customers show why we don't want it. We just need a different type of market here. We should lock out the American companies more. We can't play on the same field because we have very different values. The US care only about money, we care more about ethics.
If the market wants to go there the market is wrong and we need to curtail it. Having unrestricted capitalism isn't a European value.
> large tech companies which is where the market wants to go
Could you expand on that? Is there something inherent about the tech industry that makes large companies desirable?
The creation of a monopoly is always desirable for the company owners, so tech isn't unique in this respect.
I think the main distinguishing feature is that big IT companies are new, so the bad outcomes of tech monopolies are only now being recognised and so competition authorities have been slow to act.
Imagine one actor in the tech space charges $/whatever which is slightly cheaper than the next nearest rival. Everyone flocks to that company and they become fabulously wealthy. Because of that effect the market tends to centralise. Another way to look at it is some company is the best at whatever, everyone wants to go with that company and it is technically possible for that company to serve everyone. So there is the same tendency for companies to get very large. Obviously oversimplifying, there are a lot of ways the tendency manifests. Metcalfe's law and all that.
That applies less in the physical world because distance is a factor. If there is some hairdresser in Silicon Valley who does amazing haircuts I'm still not going to go there to get my hair done. But I'm happy to watch YouTube which is ultimately being coordinated from nearby to that hairdresser.
The issue is, based on how things have actually played out, the EU is not the place to be if you're a hyper-efficient company serving a huge number of people with huge capital reserves. I assume the tax system is the root cause.
>the EU would be a great place to build software companies if the governments weren't hostile to the idea of large tech companies which is where the market wants to go.
All unregulated markets over time tend to strive for monopoly, as it takes just a short period in which a dominant faction emerges - which kills the capitalist system. Your statement is pure tautology.
EU is hostile to tech and innovation due to top-down approach and working against market forces for sure, but market forces aren't morally good, they just exist - there's no virtue in them.
What needs to change is a shift from top-down approach to one where they setup a framework for competitive AND profitable industry. But this will never happen - EU is too rife with internal conflicts of interest between countries as they are also competing with each other.
It is stuck in-between trade union and federation, and reaps downsides of both.
This is complete nonsense. Free markets have been operating for centuries and still most markets are nowhere close to monopoly.
Not that the rest of his comments show some brilliant reasoning to be honest :)
In real life countries can have sovereignty. In cyberspace only individuals can have sovereignty.
Otherwise you’re just choosing who misuses their privilege to your data.
> In cyberspace only individuals can have sovereignty.
If you set the sovereignty at the lowest hardware level, it doesn't seem right to call it a space: what you are postulating is a set of unconnected nodes. To a get a network you will need individuals to give up some of their sovereignty to a shared entity that decides things like what protocol to use.
> It is time for Europe to develop a coherent tech strategy. Can we build digital sovereignty while simultaneously undermining the protocols that enable it?
We should. The problem is that politics is messy and with lots of opposing views. See the GDPR versus this Chat Control absurdity. But _principles_ are those that stick, and I think that the principle that communication should be private _always_ should become sort of constitutional within the EU. We are the ones that vote, we are the ones that need to signal that we don't want to give up privacy for whatever "security" some, completely uninformed, want to promise.
Anybody actually living in EU is absolutely tired of hearing "It is time for Europe to..." It's the standard sentence starter for every "bold proposal" for a decade+. Europe will keep fumbling around. The fragile unity that propelled the sweeping changes of the 90s/00s had fallen apart.
I don't see the EVP loose influence in the forseeable future. Democracy only works in theory.
>we don't want to give up privacy for whatever "security" some, completely uninformed, want to promise
You'd be surprised how easily people give up their rights for the made up security promises, without putting up a fight.
Let's go through a short list I experienced during my lifetime in my country, off the top of my head.
None of these saw any kind of major disruptive backlash against the government to convince them to backtrack, so chat control and digital ID to access the internet and comment online is only a matter of time, all it needs is another black swan or even a false flag event.Sure there was the famous trucker protests in Canada against mandatory COVID pass, but the government cracked down on that, so your protests against systems of control are irelevant. Chat control is inevitably gonna happen with or without your approval.
I’m still not sure what exactly the trucker protest people wanted (before they got co-opted by a bunch of additional groups with all their additional grievances). It was the U.S. requiring Canadian truckers to be vaccinated and have documentation if they wanted to cross the border. The federal government was responsible for making these documents available for truckers who wanted to do so.
If you enter someone‘s house you follow their ruled, but your smartphone is part of your home.
So your exampled don’t quite fit.
Try passing a law with daily house searches for security and you‘ll see the difference.
> -2020-2022 mandatory COVID vaccine ID, to be able travel and enter establishments
Imo this one was slightly different, because it was (at least where I live) a temporary emergency measure with an end date as a response to an active crisis.
But I agree that people can get blinded by security theater.
People really like staying alive
Oh yes... there's a terrorist behind every bush! I had to chase awat 10 alrady this morning who were out in my garden!
As for corona, it's more or less common knowledge by now that unless you're 60+ a common cold is more dangerous.
I think you are confusing the current variant with the early ones.
But even if, who are you to decide the 60+ don’t need protection?
And what about the people with Long COVID?
> As for corona, it's more or less common knowledge by now that unless you're 60+ a common cold is more dangerous.
That's a lie. The reality is that Covid-19 is massively more fatal than the ordinary flu [1]:
> We take the comparison between Covid-19 and flu seriously by asking how many years of influenza and pneumonia deaths are needed for cumulative deaths to those two causes to equal the cumulative toll of the Covid-19 pandemic between March 2020 and February 2023—that is, three years of pandemic deaths. We find that in one state alone—Hawaii—three years of Covid-19 mortality is equivalent to influenza and pneumonia mortality in the three years preceding the Covid-19 pandemic. For all other states, at least nine years of flu and pneumonia are needed to match Covid-19; for the United States as a whole, seventeen years are needed; and for four states, more than 21 years (the maximum observable) are needed.
The reduction in CFR since 2022-ish can mostly be attributed to vaccines [2], but unfortunately it turns out that said vaccine protection only lasts for about 6 months - that is why we are seeing COVID "summer waves" [3] which hasn't been a thing for influenza... people get vaccinated in autumn and winter, which lessens the impact of Covid during the winter time, but once that partial immunity expires cases go up again.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10168500/
[2] https://www.rsm.ac.uk/media-releases/2023/risk-of-death-redu...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/22/nx-s1-5453516/summer-surge-in...
None of those links actually cite the mortality rate of covid vs the flu
> That's a lie.
None of your links address the OP's claim. You'd need to consider < 60 mortality, not total. Replies like yours are not trust-building.
> -2020-2022 mandatory COVID vaccine ID, to be able travel and enter establishments
That one makes sense for any government valuing the lives of its citizens. COVID was one hell of a nasty bug for healthy people, and for those not in good health it often meant death.
COVID cost the lives of at least 7 million people worldwide, of which 1.2 million were in the USA. "The cost of <<freedom>>" one might say if one were absolutely cynical, simply because of the massive difference in deaths per capita to just about every other large developed country [1].
And that doesn't include the cost of lost productivity due to people being out sick, struck by Long COVID/MECFS or having to be caretaker for affected people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_...
> massive difference in deaths per capita to just about every other large developed country [1]
The US is mid-way down that list, below most of Eastern Europe. Sweden, with notably lax mask/distancing approach, is better than EU average.
Ministers are making laws for themselves, especially their police services.
Montesquieu warned about the seperation of powers between the legislator and the executive, but it seems that it is still not the case at the EU level.
The truly mind-blowing thing to me is that chat control literally goes against the constitutions of a lot of EU countries. Pooling sovereignty is one thing. Voting for regulations that you then need to implement as local laws where those local laws would directly contradict the constitution is something else.
I don’t assume malice where stupidity suffices though.
> Can we build digital sovereignty
We did. Cookie banners have persisted for well over a decade, so that's a proven track record.
Which EU law mandates cookie banners?
For the vast majority of cases, it's malicious compliance by websites to make people believe the issue of the banner when the problem is the data collection.
I think OPs point is that even malicious compliance is proof that companies feel they cannot simply ignore EU law.
And did it achieve the desired effect? I don't think so. But it caused banner fatigue and insane amount of cognitive load while not improving privacy for probably +90% of people.
> did it achieve the desired effect?
Desired by whom? At this point the desire of EU legislators is to make sure that EU never gets any chance of success in the tech field. Cookie banners do serve this goal well.
Exactly. So the desired effect was privacy, and it failed at achieving that.
And at the same time Ursula von der Leyen keeps deleting work messages … to free storage
This demonstrates the incompetence in tech in EU. Either she wants to enforce laws for the common people and not for the elite, or she is incompetent enough to believe that deleting text messages affects storage.
Brightball's comment here is relevant in this context as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45579968
We build robust encryption, then comes the naive-ignorant wave of "why do we need this? let's remove it" because policymakers don't grasp the extent of it, nor have any clue how it works and why.