Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Meta says it won’t sign Europe AI agreement, calling it an overreach

    (www.cnbc.com)
    297 points rntn | 28 comments | 18 Jul 25 17:56 UTC | HN request time: 1.223s | source | bottom
    Show context
    rockemsockem ◴[18 Jul 25 18:41 UTC] No.44608323[source]▶
    I'm surprised that most of the comments here are siding with Europe blindly?

    Am I the only one who assumes by default that European regulation will be heavy-handed and ill conceived?

    replies(12): >>44608340 #>>44608348 #>>44608365 #>>44608370 #>>44608610 #>>44608665 #>>44610625 #>>44610726 #>>44610798 #>>44612923 #>>44612936 #>>44614160 #
    1. notyourwork ◴[18 Jul 25 22:45 UTC] No.44610625[source]▶
    What is bad about heavy handed regulation to protect citizens?
    replies(11): >>44610680 #>>44610707 #>>44611218 #>>44611228 #>>44611391 #>>44611511 #>>44611793 #>>44612262 #>>44614109 #>>44614142 #>>44614972 #
    2. hardlianotion ◴[18 Jul 25 22:54 UTC] No.44610680[source]▶
    He also said “ill conceived”
    3. marginalia_nu ◴[18 Jul 25 22:57 UTC] No.44610707[source]▶
    A good example of how this can end up with negative outcomes is the cookie directive, which is how we ended up with cookie consent popovers on every website that does absolutely nothing to prevent tracking and has only amounted to making lives more frustrating in the EU and abroad.

    It was a decade too late and written by people who were incredibly out of touch with the actual problem. The GDPR is a bit better, but it's still a far bigger nuisance for regular European citizens than the companies that still largely unhindered track and profile the same.

    replies(4): >>44611073 #>>44611156 #>>44611198 #>>44614724 #
    4. zizee ◴[18 Jul 25 23:41 UTC] No.44611073[source]▶
    So because sometimes a regulation misses the mark, governments should not try to regulate?
    replies(2): >>44611185 #>>44611186 #
    5. JumpCrisscross ◴[18 Jul 25 23:58 UTC] No.44611185{3}[source]▶
    I think OP is criticising blindly trusting the regulation hits the mark because Meta is mad about it. Zuckerberg can be a bastard and correctly call out a burdensome law.
    6. marginalia_nu ◴[18 Jul 25 23:59 UTC] No.44611186{3}[source]▶
    Well, pragmatically, I'd say no. We must judge regulations not by the well wishes and intentions behind them but the actual outcomes they have. These regulations affect people, jobs and lives.

    The odds of the EU actually hitting a useful mark with these types of regulations, given their technical illiteracy, it's is just astronomically unlikely.

    7. plopilop ◴[19 Jul 25 00:01 UTC] No.44611198[source]▶
    Cookie consent popovers were the deliberate decisions of company to create the worst possible compliance. A much simpler one could have been to stop tracking users especially when it is not their primary business.

    Newer regulations also mandate that "reject all cookies" should be a one click action but surprisingly compliance is low. Once again, the enemy of the customer here is the company, not the eu regulation.

    replies(2): >>44611530 #>>44611696 #
    8. felipeerias ◴[19 Jul 25 00:03 UTC] No.44611218[source]▶
    That it is very likely not going to work as advertised, and might even backfire.

    The EU AI regulation establishes complex rules and requirements for models trained above 10^25 FLOPS. Mistral is currently the only European company operating at that scale, and they are also asking for a pause before these rules go into effect.

    9. _zoltan_ ◴[19 Jul 25 00:04 UTC] No.44611228[source]▶
    it does not protect citizens? the EU shoves down a lot of the member state's throats.
    10. CamperBob2 ◴[19 Jul 25 00:31 UTC] No.44611391[source]▶
    "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." And these people aren't what I'd call "very wise."

    Meanwhile, nobody in China gives a flying fuck about regulators in the EU. You probably don't care about what the Chinese are doing now, but believe me, you will if the EU hands the next trillion-Euro market over to them without a fight.

    replies(1): >>44616109 #
    11. mensetmanusman ◴[19 Jul 25 00:50 UTC] No.44611511[source]▶
    Will they resort to turning off the Internet to protect citizens?
    replies(2): >>44611588 #>>44612651 #
    12. ChadNauseam ◴[19 Jul 25 00:53 UTC] No.44611530{3}[source]▶
    I don’t believe that every website has colluded to give themselves a horrible user experience in some kind of mass protest against the GDPR. My guess is that companies are acting in their interests, which is exactly what I expect them to do and if the EU is not capable of figuring out what that will look like then it is a valid criticism of their ability to make regulations
    replies(2): >>44615712 #>>44616413 #
    13. justinclift ◴[19 Jul 25 01:05 UTC] No.44611588[source]▶
    Or maybe just exclude Meta from the EU? :)
    14. eastbound ◴[19 Jul 25 01:25 UTC] No.44611696{3}[source]▶
    Perfect example of regulation shaping a market. And succeeding at only ill results.
    15. terminalshort ◴[19 Jul 25 01:44 UTC] No.44611793[source]▶
    This is the same entity that has literally ruled that you can be charged with blasphemy for insulting religious figures, so intent to protect citizens is not a motive I ascribe to them.
    replies(2): >>44614606 #>>44615721 #
    16. Workaccount2 ◴[19 Jul 25 03:15 UTC] No.44612262[source]▶
    You end up with anemic industry and heavy dependability on foreign players.
    17. gnulinux996 ◴[19 Jul 25 04:39 UTC] No.44612651[source]▶
    Is this AI agreement about "turning off the Internet"?
    18. rdm_blackhole ◴[19 Jul 25 10:06 UTC] No.44614109[source]▶
    The EU is pushing for a backdoor in all major messaging/email providers to "protect the children". But it's for our own good you see? The EU knows best and it wants your data without limits and without probable cause. Everyone is a suspect.

    1984 wasn't supposed to be a blueprint.

    19. wtcactus ◴[19 Jul 25 10:12 UTC] No.44614142[source]▶
    Because it doesn't protect us.

    It just creates barriers for internal players, while giving a massive head start for evil outside players.

    20. computer ◴[19 Jul 25 11:33 UTC] No.44614606[source]▶
    What entity specifically?
    replies(1): >>44615461 #
    21. thrance ◴[19 Jul 25 11:52 UTC] No.44614724[source]▶
    Bad argument, the solution is not to not regulate, it's to make a new law mandating companies to make cookies opt-in behind a menu that can't be a banner. And if this somehow backfires too, we go again. Giving up is not the solution to the privacy crisis.
    22. stainablesteel ◴[19 Jul 25 12:31 UTC] No.44614972[source]▶
    what's bad about it is when people say "it's to protect citizens" when it's really a political move to control american companies
    23. terminalshort ◴[19 Jul 25 13:48 UTC] No.44615461{3}[source]▶
    The EU Court of Human Rights upheld a blasphemy conviction for calling Muhammad (who married a 9 year old) a pedophile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018)
    24. 1718627440 ◴[19 Jul 25 14:24 UTC] No.44615712{4}[source]▶
    Yet that user interface is against the law and enforcing the GDPR would improve it.
    25. 1718627440 ◴[19 Jul 25 14:26 UTC] No.44615721[source]▶
    But it IS protecting citizens from blasphemy.
    26. 0xDEAFBEAD ◴[19 Jul 25 15:08 UTC] No.44616109[source]▶
    Everyone working on AI will care, if ASML stops servicing TSMC's machines. If Europe is serious about responsible AI, I think applying pressure to ASML might be their only real option.
    replies(1): >>44616564 #
    27. plopilop ◴[19 Jul 25 15:37 UTC] No.44616413{4}[source]▶
    Websites use ready-to be used cookie banners provider by their advertisers. Who have all the incentive to make the process as painful as possible unless you click "accept", and essentially followed the model that Facebook pioneered.

    And since most people click on accept, websites don't really care either.

    28. CamperBob2 ◴[19 Jul 25 15:54 UTC] No.44616564{3}[source]▶
    If Europe is serious about responsible AI, I think applying pressure to ASML might be their only real option.

    True, but now they get to butt heads with the US, who call the tunes at ASML even though ASML is a European company.

    We (the US) have given China every possible incentive to break that dependency short of dropping bombs on them, and it would be foolish to think the TSMC/ASML status quo will still hold in 5-10 years. Say what you will about China, they aren't a nation of morons. Now that it's clear what's at stake, I think they will respond rationally and effectively.