Disagree as these internet "reforms" are often only paid lip service, make it harder to build new products, and in practice are rarely enforced anyways. The other obvious trend, as I alluded to previously, is people just claiming something is a step in the right direction based on intent instead of reality. There are lots of ways to make steps in the right direction and these legislative approaches are heavy handed and harmful towards providers with little user benefit.
Things like GDPR aren't supposed to be enforce in every instance. Similar to things like FCC or CE certification. That is just the better way to have such regulation. When someone complains or something happens, then these things will come into effect.
Things like the new roaming rules are essentially universally followed. It used to be extremely cumbersome to get mobile data when travelling, today it is essentially a non-issue. SEPA payments is another similar thing.
Other regulation isn't for users at all, but for other businesses. Most users won't directly notice the revised payment directive, but they will very likely get a lot of new service.
> Things like GDPR aren't supposed to be enforce in every instance. Similar to things like FCC or CE certification. That is just the better way to have such regulation. When someone complains or something happens, then these things will come into effect.
That's the problem. When enforcement is rare but with complex rules and huge penalties, it causes everyone to have to hire an army of lawyers to make sure it isn't them who the government is able to arbitrarily make an example of. The less common the enforcement the harder it is to predict how to stay on the right side of the line.
What you want instead is clear, simple rules with proportionate penalties that are rigorously enforced -- ideally with notice to give the company a chance to correct its behavior before any penalties have to be put on the table.
The thing that hurts investment the most is surprise. The investors are already taking the risk that the new business may fail. Add an uncertain regulatory environment on top of that and investment will walk away in droves.
> When enforcement is rare but with complex rules and huge penalties, it causes everyone to have to hire an army of lawyers to make sure it isn't them who the government is able to arbitrarily make an example of
This is Europe we're talking about. You are using your liberal American mind set to create issues that don't exist here.
>
What you want instead is clear, simple rules with proportionate penalties that are rigorously enforced -- ideally with notice to give the company a chance to correct its behavior before any penalties have to be put on the table.
This is exactly how rules is enforced in Europe. Pedagogy first and after that the stick for those who are purposely break the rules or are malicious.
I think the stats show that the system doesn't work given education vs tech output. Even if it isn't that specific aspect at fault it is clear that the way things are being done is not fine.
There is also quite a bit of vested interrest protectionism and permission culture run amok there like the link tax to subsidise utterly stupid greedy losers who were complaining about free advertising and wanting more that failed in Spain and yet they want everywhere and right to the memory hole - a more accurate description of right to be forgotten. Then there is the utterly stupid reason one abombinable trade bill failed, not the horrible corporate sovereignty portion that would allow for tobacco companies to sue for antismoking campaigns but thinking they could push the new world into accepting their region naming restrictions when they have been making parmesan cheese for centuries already.
> This is Europe we're talking about. You are using your liberal American mind set to create issues that don't exist here.
"This is Europe" doesn't mean anything. Do companies in Europe just violate all the laws constantly and hope the government leaves them alone? Why even have laws then instead of just a king that decides what they don't like after the fact?
If you pass a law that is complicated and hard to understand, complying with it will be arduous and inefficient. "But we didn't mean it that way" doesn't save you from businesses and investment moving elsewhere over compliance costs.
> This is exactly how rules is enforced in Europe. Pedagogy first and after that the stick for those who are purposely break the rules or are malicious.
The EU didn't ask Google to change its practices first. The opening volley was billions of dollars in fines, and then billions more for other things that they also didn't advise them to stop doing (and give them a chance to challenge the interpretation) before imposing huge penalties.
When you have broad, ambiguous laws with arbitrary enforcement, how do you expect anyone to comply with them? Or even know what compliance looks like?
reply