As a European citizen I do not trust entities located in the US to not abuse my private data ever since the patriot act.
If it was me that deal would have never came to be. If some EU entity decides to use Microsoft 365 can Microsoft guarantee that it won't give access to one US government agency or another? It really can't. Because if that EU entity wants to act in accordance with EU law, this matters. This is what that deal was for. Basically the EU saying "it is okay" although it never really was okay.
IMO we in the EU need to finally start doing our own stuff that adheres to our own laws and isn't subject to the whims of a mad king. Public Money, Public Code.
rixed · 2026-06-30 07:31:52 UTC
Who do you want to abuse your private data then? Some administration closer to home?
It's well overdue to take seriously and put all our efforts behind the many (various but little known) local-first initiatives.
> Who do you want to abuse your private data then? Some administration closer to home?
This is a very bad-faith question. If you want people to take you seriously, at least give them the respect of trying to argue with a strong, good-faith interpretation of what they're saying.
rixed · 2026-06-30 13:33:28 UTC
Irony is not bad faith.
nickslaughter02 · 2026-06-30 08:21:58 UTC
> As a European citizen I do not trust entities located in the US to not abuse my private data ever since the patriot act.
EU is working on mandating scans of all your private encrypted messages right now. EU data protection is marketing for the gullible.
A small group of people from the EU parliament is going against the wishes of the EU commission in an attempt to force through a change that contains a subsection of the bill that tries to mandate E2EE scanning.
The way this is going is definitely worrying, but what you're saying is disingenous at best.
Furthermore, even if this passes somehow, that doesn't change the fact that the US remains an unreliable partner. Now we have two governments scouring through your data instead of one.
nickslaughter02 · 2026-06-30 11:26:01 UTC
> A small group of people from the EU parliament is going against the wishes of the EU commission in an attempt to force through a change that contains a subsection of the bill that tries to mandate E2EE scanning
What are you talking about? It is the EU Commission's wish together with EPP to scan everything including E2EE, photos, videos. The original proposal even had a section about analyzing voice calls.
dgellow · 2026-06-30 09:05:23 UTC
The EU isn’t a single entity, it’s a whole ecosystem of actors pushing their own agenda. The parliament, which represents the people, has been very clearly opposed to chat control
atoav · 2026-06-30 13:07:45 UTC
No news to me. Reactionary authoritarians are a threat to freedom everywhere.
sublimefire · 2026-06-30 09:07:59 UTC
I do not trust either but you have to at least agree that having some sort of mutually recognised data privacy framework is a good idea because the courts can enforce it then. Saying everything must be from EU is also slightly silly and we should instead have something similar like certification (cyber act ?) to ensure enough competition exists to avoid service degradation. IMO cryptography could be the answer to many privacy related issues for the cross border transfers.
Also these decisions related where the data is stored and which service is used are under control of each commercial org buying them. The risks are assessed at the end of the day and in case of any issues the providers change. Why would a publicly funded org store citizen data in the US is a question regardless of privacy laws though.
pbasista · 2026-06-30 09:16:46 UTC
> Public Money, Public Code
This seems like a very good principle to adhere to in general. Anything that is funded by the public needs to serve the public interest, in my opinion.
Putting public money into e.g. proprietary software and proprietary services that are then operated and gated by a few selected companies, for profit, with their only goal being the rent seeking via long term government contracts, is in my opinion far from being in the public's best interest.
Chu4eeno · 2026-06-30 05:43:56 UTC
I wonder how many billions in lobbying money Schrems has cost various big companies.
The treaties and deals he has managed to torpedo by forcing courts to uphold privacy laws is insane (and impressive).
jhanschoo · 2026-06-30 06:13:15 UTC
For the skimmer/TL;DR'er, note that this article is by an advocacy group presenting their analysis of a situation, and then advocating and taking action on it: "Next Steps: Commission must repeal EU-US deal. noyb ..."
It is not reporting on an opinion of a representative or proxy of the European Commission.
eesmith · 2026-06-30 06:48:04 UTC
For the skimmer, the advocacy group was founded by Maximilian Schrems, whose legal cases first got the European Court of Justice to overturn the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (which described how a US company could legally store private data on EU citizens), and then got the ECJ to overturn EU–US Privacy Shield, which replaced the Safe Harbor principles.
These decisions are known as Schrems I and Schrems II after the founder of this advocacy group.
The newest version of that data transfer framework is called the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. The European Commission deemed it sufficient, in no small part because they considered it (and more specifically the Data Protection Review Court, an extrajudicial executive branch tribunal) sufficiently independent of the president.
However, in January 2025, Trump fired the Democrat members of the review court, leaving it unable to reach quorum to make decisions, which highlighted it wasn't all that independent. Now it's clearly not independent.
I don't see how a Schrems III is not in the works.
maratc · 2026-06-30 08:34:21 UTC
You could both be right: Shrems III could be in the works, and TLA could be presenting their legal analysis as an established fact.
In other words, (a) no, the "US Supreme Court" didn't "Just Bl[ow] Up EU-US Data Transfers" – there's nothing in the decision even remotely addressing the transfers (nor the EU!) – but (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.)
eesmith · 2026-06-30 10:34:25 UTC
I think "noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks", from the person/group who brought us Shrems I and Shrems II, counts enough as "Shrems III could be in the works". Don't you?
The linked article does not present their legal analysis and call for action as established fact.
maratc · 2026-06-30 10:39:28 UTC
It's ok to disagree. If the SCOTUS decision in question had any wording to the tune of "the EU-US data transfers need to stop," it would be fitting to say that the "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers." However it did not, so it wouldn't.
eesmith · 2026-06-30 14:17:41 UTC
I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.
I don't know what your point is. There is no need for the US Supreme Court, in its decision to endow the President with "unitary executive" power, to elaborate all of the things they blew up to get there.
It's not like West Virginia v. EPA elaborated all the emissions regulations which were blown up by the "major questions doctrine."
maratc · 2026-06-30 14:41:38 UTC
> I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.
I meant that it's ok for you and me to disagree.
> I don't know what your point is
My point is this: Shrems III may or may not be filed, if and when it's filed the relevant court may or may not decide to review it, if they decide to proceed they may reach many different conclusions, one of the possible outcomes being a blow-up in the EU-US data transfers. Then we will we be able, with the benefit of the hindsight, conclude that the SCOTUS decision in question indeed blew up the transfers.
But we're not there yet. At this point in time "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers" is a prediction about the future. It is however written in past perfect tense as if it's already happened. But what's happened is the SCOTUS decision only. Whether it will, or will not, blow up the data transfers — still remains to be seen.
I'm not saying that this will not happen; all I'm saying is that "blowing up of the data transfers" will happen when an actual court will decide that it's the consequence, not when some advocacy group will decide that it's the consequence.
xiphias2 · 2026-06-30 07:36:20 UTC
EU needs to decide if it wants to do data processing or not.
If it’s a yes, it needs datacenters and get a lot more energy.
If no, it needs to transfer data to US for training/inferencing on it.
joe_mamba · 2026-06-30 07:42:59 UTC
>If it’s a yes, it needs datacenters and get a lot more energy.
It can outsource its data centers abroad too like it did with its manufacturing industry.
ShinyLeftPad · 2026-06-30 08:09:45 UTC
or wait for the bubble to burst and come out on top.
drstewart · 2026-06-30 08:17:01 UTC
This. The US is playing the right move with solar panels, wait for the bubble to burst and then swoop in. Let China take the early losses.
hahahaa · 2026-06-30 08:58:23 UTC
Lol that is like saying let's wait AI out, not build fabs, TMSC will sell em cheap in 2030!
noosphr · 2026-06-30 08:26:11 UTC
The internet is a fad and will pass any day now.
general1465 · 2026-06-30 09:02:38 UTC
Current AI companies with trillion USD valuations, models which costed them billions USD to train and now have total addressable market few hundred approved entities are very close to being a fad.
ShinyLeftPad · 2026-06-30 10:42:17 UTC
One of them creates jobs, one of them removes jobs. Some societies that care about idk... people?... only want one of those things
besides compare all the money that went into one vs the other.
amarant · 2026-06-30 07:52:51 UTC
Doing business with the US is just impossible these days. If this trend continues any further the US is gonna end up a piranha state with no allies and no business partners.
I'm really not sure what consequences that'll have for the rest of the world, but it looks like we're about to find out
recursive-call · 2026-06-30 08:06:58 UTC
pariah: outcast, disliked
piranha: carnivorous fish
Etheryte · 2026-06-30 08:09:28 UTC
Also piranha: Brazilian Portugese slang for hooker.
roysting · 2026-06-30 08:41:17 UTC
Accidental accuracy
rapidaneurism · 2026-06-30 08:43:12 UTC
Do they mob potential Johns?
rusk · 2026-06-30 08:17:41 UTC
Sounds right
mistersquid · 2026-06-30 08:43:40 UTC
> piranha: carnivorous fish
Nice callout.
Neither here nor there, but many (most?) fish are carnivorous.
coderbants · 2026-06-30 08:58:05 UTC
Name checks out.
nicoburns · 2026-06-30 09:35:13 UTC
I think the key difference with piranhas is that they eat humans. Most carnivorous fish eat other fish or water-dwelling creatures.
21asdffdsa12 · 2026-06-30 11:29:10 UTC
Pesca pescatarian - would be a cuisine made entirely of fish that eat other fish?
Timon3 · 2026-06-30 12:04:25 UTC
Apparently not piranhas, they seem to be omnivorous!
IncreasePosts · 2026-06-30 08:49:00 UTC
paraná: a state/river in southern Brazil
amarant · 2026-06-30 09:47:05 UTC
Paranaueee!
Lucasoato · 2026-06-30 09:35:08 UTC
Pearà: very peppery cream from Verona, served best with boiled meat
bryanrasmussen · 2026-06-30 09:43:50 UTC
everybody loves piranha!
rusk · 2026-06-30 08:19:51 UTC
The concern is not so much that the US will lose friends moreso that other business partners will become more prominent. The US has a lot of social capital to burn. I’m not certain that somebody hasn’t calculated how much they can get away with…
coffe2mug · 2026-06-30 08:21:17 UTC
Sadly nothing will change.
- Pretty sure a large number of politicians are using claude, chatGPT etc.
- Majority of researchers in EU are dependent of all of US SV companies. There are nothing equivalent. EVen if there is mistral or other open source llms - every damn Uni/company is uploading everything to claude or open AI or gemini.
- Majority see these but just move on
- 99% of EU politicians either dont care or show apathy or worse live in a moat
- Ideally EU could have forced iphone, Google to openup. They did not.
- Same with taxation. Ireland fights EU to give tax breaks
- Its f*king broken system
vlian2088 · 2026-06-30 08:25:28 UTC
the other ~~subsidiary of AIPAC~~ party will be in power again in less than 3 years and everything will go back to business as usual. a divorce from the US is the last thing the EU really wants.
0xy · 2026-06-30 13:33:48 UTC
The EU will rely on US tech forever because it is literally not possible to create an EU alternative in that business climate. There are no major EU clouds, nor are there any major EU software services and there never will be because the EU is the worst place in the entire world for startups (try starting a company in Germany or France).
buzer · 2026-06-30 14:49:08 UTC
> nor are there any major EU software services and there never will be
SAP and Spotify come to my mind first. Some ex-EU services include Skype and Booking.com (latter might still be counted as EU service depending on definition).
penguin_booze · 2026-06-30 13:58:15 UTC
As long as US dollar remains the reserve currency, others will have to suck up to the US. This is why moving away from the USD is critical. Beyond that, people should pull their investments away from the US. This is difficult, however: US is the market that offers most returns (as to for how long, that remains to be seen), but it takes only a initial dominos falling.
seydor · 2026-06-30 07:58:14 UTC
The EU keeps trying to manifest the missing european data infrastructure via data regulation instead of outright bans and limits on american companies, the way China did it.
jimbob45 · 2026-06-30 08:12:40 UTC
Ban, limits, and regulation won’t solve a country with too many worker protections. The EU simply can’t compete in the modern globalized world.
hgtt664868 · 2026-06-30 08:14:28 UTC
slashing worker protections would do what exactly?
eecc · 2026-06-30 08:24:44 UTC
free the "animal spirits"?
/s
CalRobert · 2026-06-30 08:58:32 UTC
Tbf it could reduce hiring friction and make it easier to take a chance on a riskier hire. Also makes it easier for workers to change jobs, notice periods here can be outright insane (3 months in some cases) and even as an employee I hated them.
someonebaggy · 2026-06-30 09:41:30 UTC
Is a 6 month probationary period not good enough to take a chance?
CalRobert · 2026-06-30 10:58:51 UTC
Longest I’ve seen in NL is 2 months, and it’s usually one. It’s common to string multiple “temporary” contracts together though.
It still increases switching cost. As a worker with a permanent contract I have to weigh new opportunities against losing that. And it has real impacts! Getting a mortgage is harder on a temp contract (doable in NL, basically impossible in Ireland)
Timon3 · 2026-06-30 12:22:54 UTC
Six months is the default probationary period in Germany, I can't remember ever seeing a job without that.
Temporary contracts are also a thing here, but if there's no objective reason for the contract to be temporary it will end after max. two years. According to Verdi ~1/13 contracts are temporary - not great, but could be much worse.
CalRobert · 2026-06-30 12:28:20 UTC
This seems like companies will struggle to eliminate roles they no longer need if the person filling it has been around more than 2 years.
Timon3 · 2026-06-30 12:38:23 UTC
The two year limit doesn't apply if the company has an objective reason for making the role temporary, e.g. external dependencies.
ligne · 2026-06-30 12:34:27 UTC
It reduces risk for employers by piling it onto employees, who are also probably in a worse position to bear it.
the [somehow] is pretty clear: exploitative working conditions.
joe_mamba · 2026-06-30 09:42:01 UTC
Check Swiss worker protections compared to France or Germany and then check their economy and tech companies there. Biggest Google office outside the US is in Switzerland.
It's not better worker output, it's faster movement and pivoting to rapid changing market conditions as a company, if you can get rid of slackers that abuse unions and worker protections to coast and do nothing.
0dayz · 2026-06-30 08:25:34 UTC
It's more simple than that; lack of investment due to various factors among which some are due to regulations, but also because the lower ROI you get in the USA due to corporate culture, higher cost in general (wages, energy, resources, manufacturing, etc.), slower economic growth and so on.
barnabee · 2026-06-30 08:42:48 UTC
The only answer isn't to sink to the lowest common denominator.
Ban or tax things from the "globalised" world that are just worker/societal/environmental protection arbitrage so they're competing for the EU market on a level playing field, then we'll see who can compete.
The EU is plenty big enough to be self-sufficient if it has to and shouldn't be afraid of risking this if abusive and exploitative companies from other places don't way to pay their way.
dgellow · 2026-06-30 09:01:25 UTC
The EU isn’t a country, which is exactly why things are lacking vision and feel confusing. The EU is actually too decentralized and fragmented for its own good, contrary to what people whine about.
We need more federalism, and an actual single market
bambax · 2026-06-30 08:19:47 UTC
The EU should cut all ties with the US, tax US products and impose costly (and difficult to get) visas to American citizens wanting to visit.
It won't do any of this because it has no balls and no vision.
We're doomed and it's our fault.
rusk · 2026-06-30 08:22:17 UTC
> no balls and no vision
Seems to me they’re waiting it out. Everything could change in a presidential election and the European economy wins either way. It is an economic bloc after all.
What you describe would be what’s called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”
GolfPopper · 2026-06-30 08:31:45 UTC
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".
watwut · 2026-06-30 08:35:53 UTC
> 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.
rusk · 2026-06-30 08:56:47 UTC
I agree with everything you have written here, however even in the face of that it makes “economic” sense for the EU to wait it out.
watwut · 2026-06-30 09:07:36 UTC
If it means "be strategic and start making necessary long term adjustements without entering useless temporary pissing contests" I agree.
If it means "wait and change nothing long term, hope it will be better" I dont.
rusk · 2026-06-30 10:50:42 UTC
I think a lot of European nations have been reevaluating their relationship with the US. Digital sovereignty in particular is a burning topic.
BlueTemplar · 2026-06-30 09:03:56 UTC
For the worst, you mean ?
The current arrangement has been torpedoed a long time ago already, with the Patriot Act (2001) (though it took many years to understand the extent of it).
dspillett · 2026-06-30 10:42:57 UTC
> Everything could change in a presidential election
Not really, not immediately, IMO. And if they could, that would be a problem in itself.
It will take some time to undo what has been done and will still be done in the current term. To change things back quickly would take both someone despotic on “the other side” willing to force things through with executive orders, and have the general support needed to weather the negative PR associated with that, and (perhaps more importantly) insufficient kick-back getting those orders quickly reverted or watered down. Even if they elect someone, and a team around them, who is willing and able to work that way, the changes made recently include changes that will make them harder to roll back on. And even if things do get magically fixed in the next term, that would just prove how quickly they could be unfixed again four years later.
drstewart · 2026-06-30 08:26:49 UTC
Europeans should cut ties with their own fascist, Russian sympathizers leading the polls first, then worry about Americans.
dgellow · 2026-06-30 09:00:50 UTC
We can and should do both at the same time
kakacik · 2026-06-30 10:24:03 UTC
some would even say its one broad stroke of brush that somehow ends up covering both
AndroTux · 2026-06-30 08:42:25 UTC
They should, but the entire EU economy runs on US clouds. It's hard enough to get new hardware as it is (US hardware btw), so how should the EU, especially today, move to sovereign clouds within the next few years?
I'd argue every single EU business with more than five employees would be impacted by such a decision. Just pulling the plug would be economic suicide.
hahahaa · 2026-06-30 08:54:47 UTC
Time to dust off that sampling profiler and make code way more efficient, simple and well architected.
CalRobert · 2026-06-30 08:56:46 UTC
Alternately, it should roll out the red carpet for American entrepreneurs, scientists, and talent who want to try moving here and having a go of things in Europe. The Dutch American Friendship Treaty accidentally enables this and has become quite popular, but is only for one country.
joe_mamba · 2026-06-30 09:22:44 UTC
And then what's gonna happen to the (already fucked)Dutch housing market?
> it should roll out the red carpet for American entrepreneurs, scientists, and talent who want to try moving here and having a go of things in Europe
Only if it's bidirectional. If Americans can gentrify me out of the EU housing market with their higher purchasing power, then I should also have access to their labor market for those six figure wages to compensate. Tit for tat, as freedom of movement works in the EU. Otherwise it's just monetary colonialism. Imagine if Swedes were allowed to move to Spain but spaniards would not allowed to go work in Sweden.
kakacik · 2026-06-30 10:20:59 UTC
Maybe build more? I know folks who already own properties hate this little trick, but its pretty effective in solving this. Maybe you've not heard but there is more people than 50-100 years ago when many buildings were built, and disproportionally more in bigger cities where most well paid work is.
There are other factors like zoning and other laws, mentality of given population etc but gist is above.
joe_mamba · 2026-06-30 13:04:19 UTC
>Maybe build more?
Not up to me. I'm not a politician. And like you said, property owners hate it and they are majority.
But it's just as easy to oppose gentrification from wealthy Americans without equal terms in exchange. It has the same effect on supply/demand.
Otherwise, I'll be forced to vote for the most radical and vindictive politicians out of spite to see the world burn if I see my government prioritizes wealthy foreigners and throws me under the bus.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
CalRobert · 2026-06-30 10:59:29 UTC
Wow, if only it were possible to build new homes. Might mean less parking though!
Anyway, the number of Europeans starting companies in California suggests something is deeply wrong in Europe.
Incidentally DAFT is nominally bidirectional, but as usual the US makes it more onerous. There’s a similar agreement with NL and Japan, actually.
joe_mamba · 2026-06-30 13:11:43 UTC
>Wow, if only it were possible to build new homes.
Can we do it in your back yard?
I like how people assume every country has unlimited free space for housing and all you have to do is just build more.
CalRobert · 2026-06-30 13:43:24 UTC
Yes! Please yes! I’d love to see more homes built in my town near Utrecht and have supported plans to do so. It’s idyllic and we should try to help more people who want to live like this be able to do so.
Ironically my childhood home in California has a Dutch family living in it. Small world.
expedition32 · 2026-06-30 12:36:59 UTC
I am not too sure about that. Every US expat is a sleeper agent waiting for the CIA to call. Their loyalty will always be to America and unquestionable loyalty to the White House.
CalRobert · 2026-06-30 12:49:11 UTC
Well I suppose Europe can start its own manzanar if it comes to it.
Emigrants aren’t really known for their patriotism.
Comments
If it was me that deal would have never came to be. If some EU entity decides to use Microsoft 365 can Microsoft guarantee that it won't give access to one US government agency or another? It really can't. Because if that EU entity wants to act in accordance with EU law, this matters. This is what that deal was for. Basically the EU saying "it is okay" although it never really was okay.
IMO we in the EU need to finally start doing our own stuff that adheres to our own laws and isn't subject to the whims of a mad king. Public Money, Public Code.
It's well overdue to take seriously and put all our efforts behind the many (various but little known) local-first initiatives.
See for instance: https://elfaconsortium.eu/ It's a race against time.
This is a very bad-faith question. If you want people to take you seriously, at least give them the respect of trying to argue with a strong, good-faith interpretation of what they're saying.
EU is working on mandating scans of all your private encrypted messages right now. EU data protection is marketing for the gullible.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48707719
The way this is going is definitely worrying, but what you're saying is disingenous at best.
Furthermore, even if this passes somehow, that doesn't change the fact that the US remains an unreliable partner. Now we have two governments scouring through your data instead of one.
What are you talking about? It is the EU Commission's wish together with EPP to scan everything including E2EE, photos, videos. The original proposal even had a section about analyzing voice calls.
Also these decisions related where the data is stored and which service is used are under control of each commercial org buying them. The risks are assessed at the end of the day and in case of any issues the providers change. Why would a publicly funded org store citizen data in the US is a question regardless of privacy laws though.
This seems like a very good principle to adhere to in general. Anything that is funded by the public needs to serve the public interest, in my opinion.
Putting public money into e.g. proprietary software and proprietary services that are then operated and gated by a few selected companies, for profit, with their only goal being the rent seeking via long term government contracts, is in my opinion far from being in the public's best interest.
The treaties and deals he has managed to torpedo by forcing courts to uphold privacy laws is insane (and impressive).
It is not reporting on an opinion of a representative or proxy of the European Commission.
These decisions are known as Schrems I and Schrems II after the founder of this advocacy group.
The newest version of that data transfer framework is called the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. The European Commission deemed it sufficient, in no small part because they considered it (and more specifically the Data Protection Review Court, an extrajudicial executive branch tribunal) sufficiently independent of the president.
However, in January 2025, Trump fired the Democrat members of the review court, leaving it unable to reach quorum to make decisions, which highlighted it wasn't all that independent. Now it's clearly not independent.
I don't see how a Schrems III is not in the works.
In other words, (a) no, the "US Supreme Court" didn't "Just Bl[ow] Up EU-US Data Transfers" – there's nothing in the decision even remotely addressing the transfers (nor the EU!) – but (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.)
The linked article does not present their legal analysis and call for action as established fact.
I don't know what your point is. There is no need for the US Supreme Court, in its decision to endow the President with "unitary executive" power, to elaborate all of the things they blew up to get there.
It's not like West Virginia v. EPA elaborated all the emissions regulations which were blown up by the "major questions doctrine."
I meant that it's ok for you and me to disagree.
> I don't know what your point is
My point is this: Shrems III may or may not be filed, if and when it's filed the relevant court may or may not decide to review it, if they decide to proceed they may reach many different conclusions, one of the possible outcomes being a blow-up in the EU-US data transfers. Then we will we be able, with the benefit of the hindsight, conclude that the SCOTUS decision in question indeed blew up the transfers.
But we're not there yet. At this point in time "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers" is a prediction about the future. It is however written in past perfect tense as if it's already happened. But what's happened is the SCOTUS decision only. Whether it will, or will not, blow up the data transfers — still remains to be seen.
I'm not saying that this will not happen; all I'm saying is that "blowing up of the data transfers" will happen when an actual court will decide that it's the consequence, not when some advocacy group will decide that it's the consequence.
If it’s a yes, it needs datacenters and get a lot more energy.
If no, it needs to transfer data to US for training/inferencing on it.
It can outsource its data centers abroad too like it did with its manufacturing industry.
besides compare all the money that went into one vs the other.
I'm really not sure what consequences that'll have for the rest of the world, but it looks like we're about to find out
piranha: carnivorous fish
Nice callout.
Neither here nor there, but many (most?) fish are carnivorous.
- Pretty sure a large number of politicians are using claude, chatGPT etc.
- Majority of researchers in EU are dependent of all of US SV companies. There are nothing equivalent. EVen if there is mistral or other open source llms - every damn Uni/company is uploading everything to claude or open AI or gemini.
- Majority see these but just move on
- 99% of EU politicians either dont care or show apathy or worse live in a moat
- Ideally EU could have forced iphone, Google to openup. They did not.
- Same with taxation. Ireland fights EU to give tax breaks
- Its f*king broken system
SAP and Spotify come to my mind first. Some ex-EU services include Skype and Booking.com (latter might still be counted as EU service depending on definition).
/s
It still increases switching cost. As a worker with a permanent contract I have to weigh new opportunities against losing that. And it has real impacts! Getting a mortgage is harder on a temp contract (doable in NL, basically impossible in Ireland)
Temporary contracts are also a thing here, but if there's no objective reason for the contract to be temporary it will end after max. two years. According to Verdi ~1/13 contracts are temporary - not great, but could be much worse.
It's not better worker output, it's faster movement and pivoting to rapid changing market conditions as a company, if you can get rid of slackers that abuse unions and worker protections to coast and do nothing.
Ban or tax things from the "globalised" world that are just worker/societal/environmental protection arbitrage so they're competing for the EU market on a level playing field, then we'll see who can compete.
The EU is plenty big enough to be self-sufficient if it has to and shouldn't be afraid of risking this if abusive and exploitative companies from other places don't way to pay their way.
It won't do any of this because it has no balls and no vision.
We're doomed and it's our fault.
Seems to me they’re waiting it out. Everything could change in a presidential election and the European economy wins either way. It is an economic bloc after all.
What you describe would be what’s called “cutting off your nose to spite your face”
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.
If it means "wait and change nothing long term, hope it will be better" I dont.
The current arrangement has been torpedoed a long time ago already, with the Patriot Act (2001) (though it took many years to understand the extent of it).
Not really, not immediately, IMO. And if they could, that would be a problem in itself.
It will take some time to undo what has been done and will still be done in the current term. To change things back quickly would take both someone despotic on “the other side” willing to force things through with executive orders, and have the general support needed to weather the negative PR associated with that, and (perhaps more importantly) insufficient kick-back getting those orders quickly reverted or watered down. Even if they elect someone, and a team around them, who is willing and able to work that way, the changes made recently include changes that will make them harder to roll back on. And even if things do get magically fixed in the next term, that would just prove how quickly they could be unfixed again four years later.
I'd argue every single EU business with more than five employees would be impacted by such a decision. Just pulling the plug would be economic suicide.
> it should roll out the red carpet for American entrepreneurs, scientists, and talent who want to try moving here and having a go of things in Europe
Only if it's bidirectional. If Americans can gentrify me out of the EU housing market with their higher purchasing power, then I should also have access to their labor market for those six figure wages to compensate. Tit for tat, as freedom of movement works in the EU. Otherwise it's just monetary colonialism. Imagine if Swedes were allowed to move to Spain but spaniards would not allowed to go work in Sweden.
There are other factors like zoning and other laws, mentality of given population etc but gist is above.
Not up to me. I'm not a politician. And like you said, property owners hate it and they are majority.
But it's just as easy to oppose gentrification from wealthy Americans without equal terms in exchange. It has the same effect on supply/demand.
Otherwise, I'll be forced to vote for the most radical and vindictive politicians out of spite to see the world burn if I see my government prioritizes wealthy foreigners and throws me under the bus.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Anyway, the number of Europeans starting companies in California suggests something is deeply wrong in Europe.
Incidentally DAFT is nominally bidirectional, but as usual the US makes it more onerous. There’s a similar agreement with NL and Japan, actually.
Can we do it in your back yard?
I like how people assume every country has unlimited free space for housing and all you have to do is just build more.
Ironically my childhood home in California has a Dutch family living in it. Small world.
Emigrants aren’t really known for their patriotism.