←back to thread

111 points rabinovich | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.68s | source
Show context
greatgib ◴[] No.45813260[source]
We often make fun at stupid European regulations, like AI ones, but it is typically in such a case that it is useful. So to ensure that it could not happen when companies like that have such a monopoly that users have no power.
replies(2): >>45813358 #>>45813449 #
chao- ◴[] No.45813358[source]
Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"?

I ask this in good faith, because my observation of the last few years is that the incidents still occur, with all of the harms to individuals also occurring. Then, after N number of incidents, the company pays a fine*, and the company does not necessarily make substantive changes. Superficial changes, but not always meaningful changes that would prevent future harms to individuals.

*Do these fines tend to be used to compensate the affected individuals? I am not educated on that detail, and would appreciate info from someone who is.

replies(2): >>45813452 #>>45813572 #
1. philipwhiuk ◴[] No.45813452[source]
> Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"?

Regulations never prevent stuff happening. They offer recompense when they do. Laws don't either.

In terms of distribution of fines, it is rare.

replies(1): >>45813601 #
2. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.45813601[source]
Something prevented these services from originating in the EU to begin with. If not overregulation, what's responsible?
replies(2): >>45813684 #>>45814357 #
3. diffeomorphism ◴[] No.45813684[source]
History, venture capital, single language market, ... . Probably a dozen different factors you could point at instead.
4. Ralfp ◴[] No.45814357[source]
We've had services like that. But US competition employing thousands of people and churning billions in budgets killed them off.