Reporter: What do you make of Republicans saying that Virginia—
AOC: Wah wah wah.
We have asked Republicans for 10 years to ban partisan gerrymandering. And for 10 years, Republicans have said no.
What they’re just mad at is that they have been accustomed to a Democratic Party that rolls over.
Yes, large tech companies will see some benefits, but the regulatory complexity challenge right now is their biggest moat. Eliminating that moat should be the goal, not grievance towards US tech.
progresschamber.org/insights/eu...
The regulations that we're talking about here are simplifying rules largely to the benefit of smaller European players. It's not a question of "strengthening US-based tech companies", the biggest gains are going to be for Europe's own players.
Second, opposing everything that might help big tech companies isn't going to make us any richer. Big tech companies create tonnes of value for Europeans, More tech is good for Europe. We can't afford a reflexively anti-tech approach.
First, these cookie reforms aren't going far enough, we need to address the root problem of over engineering regulatory fixes to minor privacy concerns over economically beneficial processing (i.e. contextual ad-supported media) bsky.app/profile/pat...
If this narrative keeps playing out we're not going to see the kind of meaningful reform that we need in Europe in order to be a digitally competitive bloc.
We're struck with two major fallacies here.
www.mlex.com/mlex/articl...
Europe’s AI future depends on getting the balance right. The European Commission’s Digital Omnibus on AI is a step towards simpler, more innovation-friendly rules, but more work is needed.
Until the US gets its political house in order, it's totally expected that European policymakers will be willing to subject their citizens to some short-term pain in order to protect Europe from major strategic risks.
But will the European public have the same pain tolerance?
But the direction of travel is pretty clear. US companies will find it increasingly difficult to fully access the European market on equal terms to their rivals.
I don't think that's good for Europeans in the short term, who will face higher costs and worse services.
If anything, I expect the voices in Europe for more "sovereignty" (i.e. cutting off from the US), will continue to grow stronger, especially under this US administration.
The EU will try to minimise the blowback, and in part that means interventions that are less visible/obvious
What you'll see is perfunctory "dialogue" around the direction of travel, some "clarifications" as to the EU's approach, but nothing will fundamentally change www.mlex.com/mlex/articl...
But the European Commission faces significant pushback from a wide range of voices across the political spectrum, who view any weakening of enforcement as giving in to US pressure, and an attack on European sovereignty.
It's not taken lightly, not in the current global context.
US officials have been increasingly vocal about their opposition to EU tech rules like the DMA, which expropriate American innovation, and instrumentalise US platforms to rewrite their contracts and code to the benefit of European rivals. www.state.gov/releases/un...
Bold new direction on European competition enforcement against US tech?
... I don't think so.
pro.politico.eu/news/215958
The EC already knows it has the EPs support to go further, but these kinds of calls do give it a bit more political cover (e.g. from Member States) when it does so.
Facing these two paths, I imagine the EC will hew more towards the EP's direction, even though this will continue to have negative consequences for European users.
It would be refreshing for the EC to take a different approach, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
It's not entirely surprising, but it's only going to create more tension with the US, particularly as the US is at the same time telling the EC it wants to see enforcement move in the opposite direction.
We'll see what the Commission does with all this in its review, but the Parliament is planting its flag with a clear picture of wanting the DMA to be enforced to shift market structures in Europe away from the US companies, a more politicised orientation.
There's finally a demand for an objective assessment of the impacts of the DMA on consumers, something that I wholeheartedly agree with and that the EC should actually be baking into every decision it takes.
There's a demand for more resources for the enforcement teams, which can only help with more technically informed decision making
There's an explicit call for "coherence and legal certainty" between some of the main regulations impacting tech platforms (the inclusion of GDPR in this list would be even more appreciated)
That said, there are some good bits in the Report. There's a recognition of the number of overlapping digital rules and calls for more effective coordination amongst them in the High-Level Group
There's also calls for higher fines "to reflect the ambition of the Regulation" (... as a way of dominating big tech under Government control)
Some highlights include some out-of-pocket concerns, where there isn't much existing enforcement, including "connected TVs", Microsoft Windows defaults, hotelier concerns with Booking's platform, and AI agents.
You can tell which complainants have the most effective lobbyists.
Paragraphs 11-20 of the Report then go into detail on a number of complainants outstanding complaints and issues they want the DMA to deal with. It seems like these complainants have been talking to receptive Parliament folks to put this report together, the detail is interesting
It's also a bit of a paradox to criticise the politicisation of the DMA while actively engaging in that politicisation.
It's another paradox to say that AI systems are "reshaping competitive dynamics", in markets which are allegedly home to "entrenched gatekeepers" which are stifling smaller competitors and imposing barriers and unfair obstacles.
If compliance is measured by users actually switching (as IMCO suggests), then you may end up forcing bad outcomes for users, particularly the users who are actually quite happy with gatekeepers' services (the overwhelming majority).
It also begs the question: how many users?
While noting that gatekeepers have created new opportunities for rivals, the Report seems to blame the gatekeepers for not making these rivals' offers attractive enough, or for the lack of consumer interest.
It's a bit of a paradox to say you want fast compliance and quick enforcement, but at the same time claim that compliance should be measured by whether the complainants are permanently satisfied.
