US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers

A speech is the definition of a hypothetical. I can show you a million Trump speeches that "show" the opposite. Something tells me you wont take those as gospel for some reason.

>It's not like trade deals are ripped up over night

Oh really? I thought we're ABOUT to find out what it's like to have no allies or business partners? Weird!

>it's gonna take a while to have noticeable effect

Ah, the magic "it's happening but I can't prove it, so trust me bro". Meanwhile, I can point you to tangible metrics showing the world is moving away from the EU to China, meaning the EU will have zero trade with anyone else in short order (trust me it's really happening).

The problem with "everything could change in a presidential election" is that offers no stability. No one wants to plan around "maybe the United States goes rabid again in four years".

> Everything could change in a presidential election

A lot can change, but not everything. Trump won twice and republican elites are fully behind him. Even if he looses, the same ideologies will continue. It happened twice, it is not a fluke but a permanent property of American politics.

Moreover, constitutional changes supreme court created are structural change. They will be super hard to undone - first they would need to change supreme court composition. The influence of money in American politics will just grow, the structural advantages of conservatives have in voting system will just grow and next conservative president will have even more space for maneuvering. (Non conservative one will likely be stopped by supreme court on some excuse.)

So, basically, outside of change actual constitution which is impossible, it will stay the same at best in the long term.

free the "animal spirits"?

/s

the [somehow] is pretty clear: exploitative working conditions.

> If you have watched the EU's approach to U.S. tech cos (DMA, DPA) you can see a trend of increased regulation

Sure, no dispute here—I agree that in general, the EU has recently being making it more difficult for large American tech companies to do business in Europe.

But I don't think that that applies at all in this specific case. The EU has already been sued twice over US–EU data-sharing agreements, and both times, they fought it all the way to their supreme court, and after they lost, they quickly made new agreements that were essentially equivalent to the old ones. So the EU repeatedly gone to a lot of effort to allow US–EU data-sharing, which suggests that their priorities are the exact opposite of forbidding this.

> And the hilarious, (IMO) bad faith downvoting suggests the comment actually stings. We must ask why.

I can't speak for the others, but I personally downvoted your top-level comment because the sentence that I quoted was factually incorrect. I don't agree with your other points, but they seem like valid opinions, so I wouldn't have downvoted for those alone.

(And FWIW, I'm Canadian, so I have no vested interests in either side here)

I down voted you because you accused the GP of bad faith, rather than genuinely engaging with their point.

Don't dig yourself further into that hole by slinging "bad faith" around willy nilly.

If GDPR is an issue, you are planning to abuse peoples data.

DMA has nothing to do with small apps.

> Where are the dozens of European tech winners? Seriously. They have the best education system in the world, strong social safety nets, cheap healthcare, and great lifestyles. Why have they not created innovative technologies that turn into worldbeating companies?

This is a great question. I'm Australian, and I ask myself the same question constantly here in Aus. The engineers I graduated with in Sydney are easily as good as the engineers I worked with in the Bay Area. But where are all the startups?

Having worked in Aus and SF, I think the two big elements are culture and finance. We don't have a culture in Aus of risktaking and entrepreneurship. People just seem less interested here in changing the world by starting a tech company. If you do start a business, you're kind of on your own. There isn't a community of people who've done it before who can guide you. And there isn't the same sort of venture capital here. Lenders only want to make sure bets. There's money for low risk, low yield lending. But there are barely any funds for high risk, high yield. The successful tech startups I know in australia bootstrapped themselves (Fastmail, Atlassian).

As far as I can tell, Europe has the same problems. Europe has capital, but I don't think that capital it looking to make angel investments.

But maybe cutting ties with the US tech scene would help change that? So long as Google Docs works well, nobody is clamouring to make or fund a competitor. But take google docs away, and suddenly there's a clear need and a chance to make a lot of money. That could spur innovation.

> Where are the dozens of European tech winners? Seriously. They have the best education system in the world, strong social safety nets, cheap healthcare, and great lifestyles. Why have they not created innovative technologies that turn into worldbeating companies?

Maybe that is because there are US companies competing in the same space that are not held to the same regulations because of treaties like this one. It's hard to build a competitor to AWS, not just technically (although it very much is), but also business-wise - who would choose the unproven startup if you can go with the accepted best practise? By forcing US companies to equal footing, you give European startups more of chance. (Which is a Chinese playbook, too.)

EU companies are creative. Their economy does not create large monopolies functioning on debt. It has nothing to do with innovation. It is economic structure.

SV works on dumping prices they accuse Chinese of - sell under price until you destroy the competition anyway. Regulating its negative impacts elsewhere is entirely fair.

> -> More people have died in the EU from heat waves due to lack of air conditioning than gun violence in the US. Ratio is worse if you remove suicide gun death.

That is mostly on how heat deaths are counted in eu vs usa. In usa heat must be mentioned as a cause of death on the certificate but as those who die in heat waves mostly have underlying issues heat is rearly put as cause of death. In the eu you don't need heath mentioned on the death certificate to count it as a heath death, they count excess deaths.

EU should be more integrated, sovereign, autonomous, making thrive cooperation through all its counties and talented people and with non-hostile extra-European actors.

But competition is just a trap of short term view. Competition is for losers. Competition is war in disguise that will drop the mask as soon as it feels it is now offering more short term return to the predation mindset eager to destroy everything it can devour. Competition want everyone to be serf. Competition eats Moloch for breakfast thinking how to optimize the pipeline of Moloch production and how to eat them all faster.

Europe must free itself from the competition myths, and the sooner the better.

> More people have died in the EU from heat waves due to lack of air conditioning than gun violence in the US.

People in Eu died due to global warming which EU actually tried to deal with. Meanwhile, USA is major contributor to the warming and intentionally torpedoed last chance to make it better. Yes, the temperature is raising faster in Europe then elsewhere. That was not caused by the lack of air conditioning.

Heat waves are new. I don't know why are some Americans trying to create moral panic around air conditioning, it is not like it was illegal in Europe. Air conditioning wont stop global warming. EU do need to plant more trees in cities to create shades and start building houses that will keep cool better. And it is doing so. And again, EU genuinely tried to slow the global warming.

You need the full picture.

Heat is more lethal the older you get. Guess who has the higher life expectancy and more old people who can die of heat.

On top of that come non-unjusted work ethics especially in countries like Germany where non working hours on the hottest hours is still seen as lazy (like the southern Europeans are often seen)

> Take a look at what is happening in Germany.

It’s called resting on one's laurels.

They still try to save ICE cars and fight renewable energy sources. It’s a shame given that Germany once was leading in solar energy.

They can compete but they think they could turn back the wheel of time and could stay on previous technology.

> But you cannot regulate the world there. EU has tried. It has not worked.

You don’t need the regulate the world. Capitalism follows every regulation if the market is big enough and the EU still is big enough. They just aren’t consistent enough in enforcing it because of lobbying of shortsighted companies.