Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

In my reply I used some light sarcasm to convey my dismay at how wrong your original post was. If you read that as hostility or "heavy emotional reaction", well, that is a you problem.

We can refer back to your original post:

> The law here isn't some neutral concept of justice, but rather a regulation tailor-made by unelected officials to target large US companies.

1 - It ignores that antitrust law is a concept of justice, created to protect society against economic abuse that would otherwise harm it.

2 - It uses an old, boring, and plain wrong rhetoric about "unelected EU officials". Sorry, this is plain bullshit.

3 - It has a subtext of "poor US big tech company being unfairly targeted by mean EU government". Again, another boring and plain wrong rhetoric. Companies like Google are horribly abusive both to users and to the societies where they operate. I wouldn't be surprised if Google willingly ignored untitrust law in a cold calculation where they figured they make more in revenue then they lose in fines.






This is a wholly new concept of "antitrust" law which relies on market competition rather than consumer harm.

There is no overlap with prior antitrust except for the name and "big = bad". Even your point 3 exposes the real problem. People don't like google (neither do I, actually), impute ill intent to them, and want them punished.

I am just calling a spade a spade.


Lack of market competition is a direct harm to consumers and society. You are just seeking to undermine it with very weak rhetoric.

My entire point has been that this is an EU economic policy, not traditional "justice" (e.g. punishment for robbery).

Doing some light googling, the basis of these antitrust laws is from "Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty" [1]

Article 86 of the Treaty begins, "In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union"[2]...

This is where it gets complex, buddy, but hang with me..."financial interests" is another way of saying "economic interests", so the EU itself explicitly calls this an economic policy.

And why wouldn't they? They can and should protect their interests. So why are ou are all over the place trying to shut down conversations about them doing so?

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...

[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teec/part/THREE/title/V/c...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: