Exactly. There is no cult of "free speech" in Europe. We will just block such sites if they don't reform.
Edit: nor competative. For that matter.
And those are probably already dinosaurs compared to most recent developments on that market.
Europe is exceptionally bad at creating their own services. Maybe because it is just too convenient to use American ones or that there isn't really any venture capital available here. But the fact remains.
Subjectively, it seems we often also lack the openness for new ideas compared to America, especially around older generations.
Europe doesn't even know the significance of freedom right know. Not taking the right decision is often less important than owning it yourself. Americans seem to get that. Most of the time at least.
Europe is also very fragmented and there was hope the EU could fix that but Brexit and other internal and external factors(i.e Russia, China, Tump's policy etc) seem oppose a cohesive, united Europe for obvious reasons.
It has little to nothing to do with "openness" for new ideas. It's more about a chain of unfortunate events.
What does Huawei dominance in 5G and its ban has to do with "openness" or new ideas?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/15/trump-nat...
I wonder how many billions of dollars in damages would be done to them, if Google, or Wikipedia, or GitHub started blocking traffic to their.
There's much wrong with Facebook but blaming them for not preventing the actions of their users at the moment those actions take place is moronic.
Should we let the technical infeasibility of them profitably solving a problem that they themselves have created be our moral compass?
> You can't blame a company for not using something that's technologically probably not even possible to make reliably today.
The point IMO is not to assign blame. It's to create legislation for the betterment of society. You can agree or disagree that it would be better, but don't reduce it to a blame game.
> And what if it's not "morally scalable", you shut it down? You break it by force like it was done with Bell system? Would having "Face corp." and "Book corp." really solve any of these issues, which are fundamentally a problem of human nature?
As I said, as far as I'm concerned, that's their problem. You implement the legal framework necessary to uphold a desirable moral standard and let that have its effect on the market. In those terms it's irrelevant how Facebook fares.
And no, this is not fundamentally a problem of human nature. Millions-to-billion user social networks have only been a problem for a brief moment of human history. Much like other problems throughout history it might go away some day. Not by itself, but by systematically working on improving the human condition.