• ninthant@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Meta’s chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan accused the Commission of trying to “handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards

    We all see where this is going, right? Anti-competitive behaviour now being framed as “USA #1” patriotism and actively defended by MAGA via tariffs and trade policy.

    People outside the US need to stop using American platforms.

    • huppakee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      Actually, this was news was posted earlier today (here) and someone commented the following:

      EU fines generally have a bad track record when it comes to stopping companies from trying to get away with stuff, but they do have an excellent track record when it comes to making them stop.

      Differently put: You won’t see the EU levy another fine against Apple for this because Apple doesn’t fancy getting slapped with a 40bn fine. If your main armament is big enough all you’ll ever need is shots before the bow.

      Can’t say for sure it is true, but if it is it would definitely have a serious effect.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I don’t understand. “It doesn’t make them stop, but it makes them stop?” Where are these $40 BN fines?

        • huppakee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Maybe i should have copy and pasted their follow-up comment as well:

          Well, it’s sufficient. Using larger calibres for the opening salvo would increase the risk of companies succeeding in fighting fines before court, and companies generally have some kind of creative interpretation of the law at the ready to justify what they’re doing. Fining companies into bankruptcy or out of competition for a first offence is rather hard to justify, for repeat offenders, though? Companies continuing their behaviour after having received a warning fine have no excuse, now the gloves come off otherwise you’re perceived as a paper tiger.

          I think their point is that giving a small fine the first time is enough reason for them to change their behaviour because they know they could get a much higher fine (for example $40 Bn). I don’t know how true this is, didn’t research it, but it sounds plausible.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Millions for companies worth TRILLIONS is like fining ordinary people a few pennies.

    If the fine doesn’t HURT, then it’s not going to be effective.

    Corporations should be fined at least the value of 50% of the profits from the timeframe they were committing those crimes. If they’ve been breaking the law for years, then the fine will likely be tens or hundreds of billions of dollars.

    If the law doesn’t compel these companies to act ethically, they simply won’t.