EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2431
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On June 19 2020 11:01 StalkerTL wrote: There’s Gaetz referring to his son as a helper or just another overachieving student in the past. Overall though, it’s pretty meaningless and I completely understand why he might not want to tell anyone about him in the hopes of giving him a pretty ordinary life. That being said, the timing of the reveal is the thing that is actually odd and it’s meaningless if it’s a deflection. It still doesn’t mean he can comprehend what minorities go through in their daily life. Especially since the son is Cuban living in presumably Florida. There's also a ton of elitism/hate/resentment from documented immigrants towards undocumented immigrants. Since they did it through standard channels, they totally hate the idea of people getting the same thing otherwise. I've seen a lot of that first hand as a Hispanic. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26327 Posts
twitter.com First chance seeing this new Twitter filter in action (I rarely use it as a platform) Small thing but I really do quite like the ‘this is fake news’ filter they’ve added. Enough replies to said Tweet saying it’s disgusting what CNN are publishing kind of points to the necessity of such flags. I’m curious as to where this goes from here, Trump seems to be doubling down in his long-standing war against the media and now tech aggregators. It’s long been my fear that the worst part of a mostly terrible legacy is going to be Trump’s tearing down of the media. Not that the media is without fault but a situation where a sizeable constituency of a nation outright doesn’t believe basically anything coming from the fourth estate regardless of veracity is a terrible state of affairs for societal cohesion. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 19 2020 12:14 Wombat_NI wrote: So apparently there’s some new controversy over Trump/CNN and Twitter, his account tweeting out some attempt at satire using CNN footage of toddlers hugging only selective editing it to make them be running away twitter.com First chance seeing this new Twitter filter in action (I rarely use it as a platform) Small thing but I really do quite like the ‘this is fake news’ filter they’ve added. Enough replies to said Tweet saying it’s disgusting what CNN are publishing kind of points to the necessity of such flags. I’m curious as to where this goes from here, Trump seems to be doubling down in his long-standing war against the media and now tech aggregators. It’s long been my fear that the worst part of a mostly terrible legacy is going to be Trump’s tearing down of the media. Not that the media is without fault but a situation where a sizeable constituency of a nation outright doesn’t believe basically anything coming from the fourth estate regardless of veracity is a terrible state of affairs for societal cohesion. The label seems like nobody let Twitter in on the joke. Like Jonathan Swift needs a warning on the first page to alert the reader that what follows is satire. It's even hard to set out in replies to see what ones are performative, like some ridiculous contingent of America thinks CNN actually puts "racist baby" and "probably a Trump voter" on some footage of toddlers. Yeah, right. Trump is a bit player in the discrediting of the media. They're doing it to themselves. The latest ones were firing the editorial editor over a right-wing editorial, and the WaPo retelling of a blackface incident at a Halloween party two years ago (Robby Soave take). Trump's 99% effective if he just tweeted out "See!" after each article that gets retracted, or mainstream attack on some teenager in a MAGA hat, or liberal that gets canceled for being insufficiently woke in writing or personal life. Heavily biased articles, often purporting to be straight news reporting, turned people off way long ago. Fox News rose up in the absence of newsroom diversity of thought. It's gotten worse since then, but the current phase just looks like bad art critics. Particularly, back when people claimed Trump really crossed a line when a memey WWE edit showed Trump bodyslamming a CNN logo. They straight up doxxed the guy and were proud of it. Right. Trump's literally not the problem; he's a symptom of a deeper problem, and maybe a right-populist beta test for the cure. His constituency has known for a while that the left-wing of the country despises them. Thinks religion is a thin veil for hate. Thinks their cultural traditions are regressive and racist. Thinks their immigration opinions are xenophobic. Along comes Trump, who offers a grand proposition: "I'm gonna throw it right back in their faces, constantly, in ways they can't ignore or forget. I'm your voice, and they'll spend more time trying to silence and destroy me than you. Enjoy the show!" Trump honestly deserves very little credit for current media distrust. The edifice was cracking and the foundation had crumbled. He's gonna take credit, just because that's who he is, but the weak standards and poor diversity are really the only reason they've been falling to so ineffective of a critic. Let me leave you with a little Stephen L Miller piece in the Spectator:+ Show Spoiler + Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey opened up a Pandora’s box two days ago by dropping a fact-check on a tweet by Donald Trump regarding mail-in ballots. That raised all sorts of hell from a bombastic President, as well as more questions than answers. There are several problems with Twitter deciding to put its thumb on the scale of ‘truth’ on its social platform. The site has previously come under enormous scrutiny over widely perceived political and ideological bias. The charges against the company include its unfair and unbalanced actions in banning conservative or politically right-leaning accounts, as well as shadow-banning and limiting views and engagements on trending topics which it deems problematic. The extent of these actions is unknown, as Twitter does not share discipline or corporate information regarding personal accounts, but none of that matters. Twitter now sits right in the sights of legislative tech-happy politicians such as Sen. Josh Hawley, Sen. Ted Cruz and of course the President himself. And Twitter’s new selective fact-checking system has only further infuriated the company’s critics. At the heart of the debate is ultimately what Twitter is. What is social media as a whole? Do companies such as Twitter or Facebook have a duty to police and take action on what registered users post? Or do they have a moral or journalistic obligation to act and behave as the gatekeeping elite media demand? The actions Jack Dorsey took seem to suggest he is more interested in pleasing the New York Times and their digital mob of endangered professionals than he is maintaining a medium that has all but rendered legacy and print media completely obsolete. [...] In an interview with Fox News, Zuckerberg was asked about Twitter’s new fact check policy. He told Dana Perino that ‘I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.’ This of course enrages legacy journalists and self appointed fact-checkers who turned their industry over to narrative-happy activists with bylines — the people who gave up pursuing truth, no matter the political consequences, years ago. Facebook isn’t killing journalism. Journalists are killing journalism. It is not Facebook’s responsibility to police posts by private users or groups containing conspiracies about QAnon or Bill Gates or the coronavirus just as it is not Twitter’s job to decide which statements made by President Trump are false. Fact-checking widespread information on social media should be the job of journalists — but journalists have lost interest in facts and, by consequence, have lost all public trust. It is the dying journalism industry that has helped create an environment of polarization and conspiratorial entertainment around stories such as the death of Jeffrey Epstein or who QAnon is. If the public trusted journalists, wilder theories would disappear and become niche groups like Bigfoot. But legacy media doesn’t actually care about correcting misinformation. They only care that they are the ones back in charge of spreading it. Journalists all but ignored eight years of scandals surrounding Barack Obama. They were too busy going full gooey eyes over his tan suit and clever speeches. They only have themselves to blame for a public writ large now ignoring them or labeling them fake news and choosing other sources of news information. But somehow they still have the power, or the social prestige, to convince tech billionaires to be more like them. In pushing Twitter towards the role of publishing, journalists and Jack Dorsey have handed Donald Trump an enormous gift ahead of the election. Republicans will find there are plenty of votes to be won from people who fed up of being scorned, derided and evening censored by the media. Mark Zuckerberg understands that media credibility lies with news organizations themselves, not him, and if there is to be any corrective course, that action must be taken by journalists. Adapt or die. Jack Dorsey seems determine to appease the news organizations even if it imperils his company. The whole Facebook approach vs Twitter approach is kind of illustrative. I also know that many of y'all's priors will determine if Trump was ultimately necessary to upset the apple cart on behalf of a divided country, or if media bias from the legacy networks, newspapers, and magazines is actually not so bad. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On June 18 2020 11:09 Sent. wrote: It would be naive to expect the American government to be fine with the EU imposing serious restrictions on companies that are mostly American. It's reasonable to expect Trump's reaction to be inadequate, but blaming all of this on him would be a stretch. EU is in the talks with other countries on global rules about digital taxation, which I think is fair. It's better to establish the rules worldwide so that countries like China, US don't impose tariffs in retaliation. You think it's fair for global platforms like google and facebook to make millions of profit from the users in EU or other parts of the world, without paying any taxes in those parts of the world? Fat chance... Just like any company operating in other countries pays taxes for profiting there, so will google, facebook and any other american or non-american company has to pay taxes for making huge profits from business involving services worldwide. This isn't unfair to american digital companies, it just so happens that they profit the most without paying the said taxes for their profits, which is unacceptable. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On June 19 2020 15:01 raga4ka wrote: EU is in the talks with other countries on global rules about digital taxation, which I think is fair. It's better to establish the rules worldwide so that countries like China, US don't impose tariffs in retaliation. You think it's fair for global platforms like google and facebook to make millions of profit from the users in EU or other parts of the world, without paying any taxes in those parts of the world? Fat chance... Just like any company operating in other countries pays taxes for profiting there, so will google, facebook and any other american or non-american company has to pay taxes for making huge profits from business involving services worldwide. This isn't unfair to american digital companies, it just so happens that they profit the most without paying the said taxes for their profits, which is unacceptable. I don't think you understand where the leverage lies. It lies with the US and China, not the EU. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/technology/top-100.html only 14 of the top 100 tech companies are European lol. The vast majority are American and Chinese. The leverage is why the US and China have the luxury of considering retaliatory tariffs. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7989 Posts
On June 19 2020 14:36 Danglars wrote: The label seems like nobody let Twitter in on the joke. Like Jonathan Swift needs a warning on the first page to alert the reader that what follows is satire. It's even hard to set out in replies to see what ones are performative, like some ridiculous contingent of America thinks CNN actually puts "racist baby" and "probably a Trump voter" on some footage of toddlers. Yeah, right. Trump is a bit player in the discrediting of the media. They're doing it to themselves. The latest ones were firing the editorial editor over a right-wing editorial, and the WaPo retelling of a blackface incident at a Halloween party two years ago (Robby Soave take). Trump's 99% effective if he just tweeted out "See!" after each article that gets retracted, or mainstream attack on some teenager in a MAGA hat, or liberal that gets canceled for being insufficiently woke in writing or personal life. Heavily biased articles, often purporting to be straight news reporting, turned people off way long ago. Fox News rose up in the absence of newsroom diversity of thought. It's gotten worse since then, but the current phase just looks like bad art critics. Particularly, back when people claimed Trump really crossed a line when a memey WWE edit showed Trump bodyslamming a CNN logo. They straight up doxxed the guy and were proud of it. Right. Trump's literally not the problem; he's a symptom of a deeper problem, and maybe a right-populist beta test for the cure. His constituency has known for a while that the left-wing of the country despises them. Thinks religion is a thin veil for hate. Thinks their cultural traditions are regressive and racist. Thinks their immigration opinions are xenophobic. Along comes Trump, who offers a grand proposition: "I'm gonna throw it right back in their faces, constantly, in ways they can't ignore or forget. I'm your voice, and they'll spend more time trying to silence and destroy me than you. Enjoy the show!" Trump honestly deserves very little credit for current media distrust. The edifice was cracking and the foundation had crumbled. He's gonna take credit, just because that's who he is, but the weak standards and poor diversity are really the only reason they've been falling to so ineffective of a critic. Let me leave you with a little Stephen L Miller piece in the Spectator:+ Show Spoiler + Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey opened up a Pandora’s box two days ago by dropping a fact-check on a tweet by Donald Trump regarding mail-in ballots. That raised all sorts of hell from a bombastic President, as well as more questions than answers. There are several problems with Twitter deciding to put its thumb on the scale of ‘truth’ on its social platform. The site has previously come under enormous scrutiny over widely perceived political and ideological bias. The charges against the company include its unfair and unbalanced actions in banning conservative or politically right-leaning accounts, as well as shadow-banning and limiting views and engagements on trending topics which it deems problematic. The extent of these actions is unknown, as Twitter does not share discipline or corporate information regarding personal accounts, but none of that matters. Twitter now sits right in the sights of legislative tech-happy politicians such as Sen. Josh Hawley, Sen. Ted Cruz and of course the President himself. And Twitter’s new selective fact-checking system has only further infuriated the company’s critics. At the heart of the debate is ultimately what Twitter is. What is social media as a whole? Do companies such as Twitter or Facebook have a duty to police and take action on what registered users post? Or do they have a moral or journalistic obligation to act and behave as the gatekeeping elite media demand? The actions Jack Dorsey took seem to suggest he is more interested in pleasing the New York Times and their digital mob of endangered professionals than he is maintaining a medium that has all but rendered legacy and print media completely obsolete. [...] In an interview with Fox News, Zuckerberg was asked about Twitter’s new fact check policy. He told Dana Perino that ‘I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.’ This of course enrages legacy journalists and self appointed fact-checkers who turned their industry over to narrative-happy activists with bylines — the people who gave up pursuing truth, no matter the political consequences, years ago. Facebook isn’t killing journalism. Journalists are killing journalism. It is not Facebook’s responsibility to police posts by private users or groups containing conspiracies about QAnon or Bill Gates or the coronavirus just as it is not Twitter’s job to decide which statements made by President Trump are false. Fact-checking widespread information on social media should be the job of journalists — but journalists have lost interest in facts and, by consequence, have lost all public trust. It is the dying journalism industry that has helped create an environment of polarization and conspiratorial entertainment around stories such as the death of Jeffrey Epstein or who QAnon is. If the public trusted journalists, wilder theories would disappear and become niche groups like Bigfoot. But legacy media doesn’t actually care about correcting misinformation. They only care that they are the ones back in charge of spreading it. Journalists all but ignored eight years of scandals surrounding Barack Obama. They were too busy going full gooey eyes over his tan suit and clever speeches. They only have themselves to blame for a public writ large now ignoring them or labeling them fake news and choosing other sources of news information. But somehow they still have the power, or the social prestige, to convince tech billionaires to be more like them. In pushing Twitter towards the role of publishing, journalists and Jack Dorsey have handed Donald Trump an enormous gift ahead of the election. Republicans will find there are plenty of votes to be won from people who fed up of being scorned, derided and evening censored by the media. Mark Zuckerberg understands that media credibility lies with news organizations themselves, not him, and if there is to be any corrective course, that action must be taken by journalists. Adapt or die. Jack Dorsey seems determine to appease the news organizations even if it imperils his company. The whole Facebook approach vs Twitter approach is kind of illustrative. I also know that many of y'all's priors will determine if Trump was ultimately necessary to upset the apple cart on behalf of a divided country, or if media bias from the legacy networks, newspapers, and magazines is actually not so bad. Yeah. And at what point do you start taking responsibility for the damage the guy you have elected is doing? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4742 Posts
If that list would represent leverage then Tawian would be bullying mainland China not the other way around. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22125 Posts
On June 19 2020 16:24 BerserkSword wrote: Their location doesn't matter.I don't think you understand where the leverage lies. It lies with the US and China, not the EU. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/technology/top-100.html only 14 of the top 100 tech companies are European lol. The vast majority are American and Chinese. The leverage is why the US and China have the luxury of considering retaliatory tariffs. Why does steam offer a 2 hour no questions asked refund? Because else they would get constantly sued by EU consumers who have a right to refunds and risk being locked out of the EU market by the courts for not complying with EU regulations. Yet Valve is American. If companies want to operate in the EU they need to follow EU regulations. And companies generally care about having access to the 3e largest market in the world. And if they don't want to play ball its only a matter of time until another companies comes to fill the gap. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26327 Posts
On June 19 2020 14:36 Danglars wrote: The label seems like nobody let Twitter in on the joke. Like Jonathan Swift needs a warning on the first page to alert the reader that what follows is satire. It's even hard to set out in replies to see what ones are performative, like some ridiculous contingent of America thinks CNN actually puts "racist baby" and "probably a Trump voter" on some footage of toddlers. Yeah, right. Trump is a bit player in the discrediting of the media. They're doing it to themselves. The latest ones were firing the editorial editor over a right-wing editorial, and the WaPo retelling of a blackface incident at a Halloween party two years ago (Robby Soave take). Trump's 99% effective if he just tweeted out "See!" after each article that gets retracted, or mainstream attack on some teenager in a MAGA hat, or liberal that gets canceled for being insufficiently woke in writing or personal life. Heavily biased articles, often purporting to be straight news reporting, turned people off way long ago. Fox News rose up in the absence of newsroom diversity of thought. It's gotten worse since then, but the current phase just looks like bad art critics. Particularly, back when people claimed Trump really crossed a line when a memey WWE edit showed Trump bodyslamming a CNN logo. They straight up doxxed the guy and were proud of it. Right. Trump's literally not the problem; he's a symptom of a deeper problem, and maybe a right-populist beta test for the cure. His constituency has known for a while that the left-wing of the country despises them. Thinks religion is a thin veil for hate. Thinks their cultural traditions are regressive and racist. Thinks their immigration opinions are xenophobic. Along comes Trump, who offers a grand proposition: "I'm gonna throw it right back in their faces, constantly, in ways they can't ignore or forget. I'm your voice, and they'll spend more time trying to silence and destroy me than you. Enjoy the show!" Trump honestly deserves very little credit for current media distrust. The edifice was cracking and the foundation had crumbled. He's gonna take credit, just because that's who he is, but the weak standards and poor diversity are really the only reason they've been falling to so ineffective of a critic. Let me leave you with a little Stephen L Miller piece in the Spectator:+ Show Spoiler + Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey opened up a Pandora’s box two days ago by dropping a fact-check on a tweet by Donald Trump regarding mail-in ballots. That raised all sorts of hell from a bombastic President, as well as more questions than answers. There are several problems with Twitter deciding to put its thumb on the scale of ‘truth’ on its social platform. The site has previously come under enormous scrutiny over widely perceived political and ideological bias. The charges against the company include its unfair and unbalanced actions in banning conservative or politically right-leaning accounts, as well as shadow-banning and limiting views and engagements on trending topics which it deems problematic. The extent of these actions is unknown, as Twitter does not share discipline or corporate information regarding personal accounts, but none of that matters. Twitter now sits right in the sights of legislative tech-happy politicians such as Sen. Josh Hawley, Sen. Ted Cruz and of course the President himself. And Twitter’s new selective fact-checking system has only further infuriated the company’s critics. At the heart of the debate is ultimately what Twitter is. What is social media as a whole? Do companies such as Twitter or Facebook have a duty to police and take action on what registered users post? Or do they have a moral or journalistic obligation to act and behave as the gatekeeping elite media demand? The actions Jack Dorsey took seem to suggest he is more interested in pleasing the New York Times and their digital mob of endangered professionals than he is maintaining a medium that has all but rendered legacy and print media completely obsolete. [...] In an interview with Fox News, Zuckerberg was asked about Twitter’s new fact check policy. He told Dana Perino that ‘I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.’ This of course enrages legacy journalists and self appointed fact-checkers who turned their industry over to narrative-happy activists with bylines — the people who gave up pursuing truth, no matter the political consequences, years ago. Facebook isn’t killing journalism. Journalists are killing journalism. It is not Facebook’s responsibility to police posts by private users or groups containing conspiracies about QAnon or Bill Gates or the coronavirus just as it is not Twitter’s job to decide which statements made by President Trump are false. Fact-checking widespread information on social media should be the job of journalists — but journalists have lost interest in facts and, by consequence, have lost all public trust. It is the dying journalism industry that has helped create an environment of polarization and conspiratorial entertainment around stories such as the death of Jeffrey Epstein or who QAnon is. If the public trusted journalists, wilder theories would disappear and become niche groups like Bigfoot. But legacy media doesn’t actually care about correcting misinformation. They only care that they are the ones back in charge of spreading it. Journalists all but ignored eight years of scandals surrounding Barack Obama. They were too busy going full gooey eyes over his tan suit and clever speeches. They only have themselves to blame for a public writ large now ignoring them or labeling them fake news and choosing other sources of news information. But somehow they still have the power, or the social prestige, to convince tech billionaires to be more like them. In pushing Twitter towards the role of publishing, journalists and Jack Dorsey have handed Donald Trump an enormous gift ahead of the election. Republicans will find there are plenty of votes to be won from people who fed up of being scorned, derided and evening censored by the media. Mark Zuckerberg understands that media credibility lies with news organizations themselves, not him, and if there is to be any corrective course, that action must be taken by journalists. Adapt or die. Jack Dorsey seems determine to appease the news organizations even if it imperils his company. The whole Facebook approach vs Twitter approach is kind of illustrative. I also know that many of y'all's priors will determine if Trump was ultimately necessary to upset the apple cart on behalf of a divided country, or if media bias from the legacy networks, newspapers, and magazines is actually not so bad. Donald Trump is not exactly Swift. Was browsing the comments and most got that it was a joke, be they laughing along or finding it in poor taste. Still a staggering amount of people who seemed to take it at face value. Just an interesting new feature, I’m curious how they roll it out. I don’t think it’s coincidental at all that the prevalence of conspiracy theories in popular discourse has shot up as social media became how many people consumed and shared news, and was nigh on completely unregulated to boot. As to where the lines should be, how consistency should be applied and what is actually practically achievable, well we shall see what direction that goes in. I recall being in various groups where various videos were shared and mislabelled with either a clear intent, or at least effect of stirring racist hatred. Stuff like ‘Muslim men rioting in London’, with people commenting in a predictably hateful fashion. Bit of digging and iirc this particular footage was about a decade old and was actually taken in Israel (specifics aren’t especially important was a while ago, you get the picture). Even after I pointed this out I assume many didn’t view my debunking and went away with a completely wrong idea based on misinformation. Eventually that rhetoric fosters the ‘Muslims are taking over Europe’ and all the ‘fun’ that that brings. If nothing else, at a bare minimum such transparently false attempts at race/religious baiting should be labelled as such, although I feel outright removal is more appropriate. Will respond to the rest of your post shortly. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26327 Posts
On June 19 2020 16:24 BerserkSword wrote: I don't think you understand where the leverage lies. It lies with the US and China, not the EU. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/technology/top-100.html only 14 of the top 100 tech companies are European lol. The vast majority are American and Chinese. The leverage is why the US and China have the luxury of considering retaliatory tariffs. The EU has plenty of leverage, GDPR attests to that. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On June 19 2020 18:34 Gorsameth wrote: Their location doesn't matter. Why does steam offer a 2 hour no questions asked refund? Because else they would get constantly sued by EU consumers who have a right to refunds and risk being locked out of the EU market by the courts for not complying with EU regulations. Yet Valve is American. If companies want to operate in the EU they need to follow EU regulations. And companies generally care about having access to the 3e largest market in the world. And if they don't want to play ball its only a matter of time until another companies comes to fill the gap. Which they currently can't by the way due to (among others) having to actually pay taxes. It shouldn't be an issue to declare business you do in a country, in that country. | ||
|
Vivax
22210 Posts
On June 19 2020 18:34 Gorsameth wrote: Their location doesn't matter. Why does steam offer a 2 hour no questions asked refund? Because else they would get constantly sued by EU consumers who have a right to refunds and risk being locked out of the EU market by the courts for not complying with EU regulations. Yet Valve is American. If companies want to operate in the EU they need to follow EU regulations. And companies generally care about having access to the 3e largest market in the world. And if they don't want to play ball its only a matter of time until another companies comes to fill the gap. Don't think you're both talking about the same thing. US has excelled at aggressively expanding their brands over the last 20 years and establishing de facto monopolies of which some simply choke or buy up lesser start-ups. There is no competition, except from China. Then Trump came up with his policy of punishing exporters into the US with tariffs and other shenanigans while demanding that the monopolies don't pay a dime. EU then turned to China for next generation internet infrastructure, and got told it's unacceptable for security reasons, so , get your stuff from us or sod off. Whether that's the actual reason could be debated, it's the official one. But seems rational to me from EU perspective that you want some competition between two countries within your country to get better deals. And regarding taxes, there's already enough loopholes within the EU for big corp to pay less.Then you see Trump complaining that Germany isn't paying enough for this and that, but he doesn't give a damn that the money has to come from somewhere. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On June 19 2020 18:34 Gorsameth wrote: Their location doesn't matter. Why does steam offer a 2 hour no questions asked refund? Because else they would get constantly sued by EU consumers who have a right to refunds and risk being locked out of the EU market by the courts for not complying with EU regulations. Yet Valve is American. If companies want to operate in the EU they need to follow EU regulations. And companies generally care about having access to the 3e largest market in the world. And if they don't want to play ball its only a matter of time until another companies comes to fill the gap. On June 19 2020 20:14 Wombat_NI wrote: The EU has plenty of leverage, GDPR attests to that. Well maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Of course the EU has some leverage, since like you guys said, it's an extremely lucrative market. That's why the EU can throw massive fines at companies like Google and FAcebook. I was mainly talking about the part about retaliatory tariffs from the US and China, which raga4ka brought up as something to prevent by means of globalization. If things really go to that level ("trade war" situation involving retaliation) then the leverage is not with the EU. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22125 Posts
On June 19 2020 22:57 BerserkSword wrote: The EU can simply wait out the US. EU fining Google or Facebook is no concern of the American government and once Trump is gone work can begin to re-stabilise relations between the two continents.Well maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Of course the EU has some leverage, since like you guys said, it's an extremely lucrative market. That's why the EU can throw massive fines at companies like Google and FAcebook. I was mainly talking about the part about retaliatory tariffs from the US and China, which raga4ka brought up as something to prevent by means of globalization. If things really go to that level ("trade war" situation involving retaliation) then the leverage is not with the EU. I wouldn't be worried about it unless the GOP seriously adopts Trumps position going forward. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2395 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
22210 Posts
The EU isn't particularly profitable without tourism imo. Most banks are in bad shape, tech is meh and cars + industry replaceable by competitors. The upside is that it is mostly pleasant to live in with access to affordable ed + healthcare. But to stay that way it needs its consumers to not be dependent on monopolies. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I don't think Trump is purposefully doing it, but his campaign certainly has people who are making those appeals. (IE, someone suggested June 19th Tulsa rally and didn't say Juneteenth was why). In a normal political campaign they'd get thrown under the bus for making really racist suggestions, but these aren't normal times. | ||
| ||
