I've been trying to wrap my head about whether that's different than the negative response about any regulation in general (including the US one), and I feel like it is more negative; as for why, I would only be speculating.
But maybe that's also what it feels like to become as relevant int he tech world as the US. There is no shortage of US-bashing in international tech discussions. As long as it stays good spirited, I don't mind.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. We're(1) a bunch of programmers. We are very sensitive to unintended consequences in complex systems. I think we just tend to be a little more careful with feel-good regulations that might produce these, along with being more evidence based in judging success.
(1) With all of the usual caveats about the monolithic "us".
The choice of which of these matters decides the politics.
That's like free printers with expensive ink cartridges.
But apparently I'm wrong?
Implementing it merely risks a minor decrease in economic efficiency for a few years. The potential reward can last for an unlimited time. And there's a guaranteed reward too: Gaining knowledge on what policies work. We should do it even if we expected it to fail (see also VCs).
No society ever collapsed due to policy on repairing washing machines. One could survive indefinitely in a sub-optimal policy regime on a topic of limited importance without collapsing.
ultra progressives tend to believe the Government is the only force who can safeguard workers. Many other forms of liberal believe that while the Government has a role to play in setting boundaries for capitalism and engaging in non-capitalist activity (welfare, public education, etc) that it does not always act in the interest of the people.
This is likely part of what you see as "HN being conservative on gender equality" (paraphrasing). Most HNers seem to hold belief in equality of opportunity (classical liberal) vs equality of outcome (ultra progressive). In other words, the debate can be seen as whether it's necessary to have 50% of a given field be women and 50% be men, or simply for there to be an absence of a gender based discrimination. (And ultra progressives would likely respond that anything can be gender based discrimination, whereas a classic liberal would be looking for intent)
(Leaving my attempts at a neutral point of view and going into my own beliefs) One of the flaws in ultra progressiveism is that it's reductionist (a person is defined as a mix of attributes such as political affiliation, gender or lack thereof, social class, etc) which encourages an "us vs them" mentality. The issue ultra progressives face is that "us" is becoming an ever shrinking circle which now excludes most of their other liberal allies.
My impression is that workers are pretty much the only disadvantaged group that ultra progressives do not care about. Apart from that, you're on point.
But when politics drives and runs with left/right mentality, they end up disenfranchising common sense more often than not and you end up politically with a seesaw effect - you get a controlling party that is one way, then after a while you end up with a party the other way to restore balance.
This is one of those wonderful moments in which the result is common sense on so many levels that we should (sure many do) see it for what it is - something wonderful.
But everybody has a bad day, political things of any form can bring out the worst in all of us, but decorum upon this forum, does a better job than most in regulating those aspects. For that, let us be thankful as I can only imagine the Twitter flavours of this very subject being played out and shudder.
But credit when it is due - thank you EU for this.
"Very conservative views" on gender equality would ask for a niqab, female education ban and a mandatory dowry. I doubt you'll find here a lot of people sharing these views.
I believed that once, but companies show over and over again that the lack of regulation comes at a greater cost than their gains, and the gains for the society - and I, as a tax payer, am not willing to see the shit I help to pay for getting abused.
For example, Peter Thiel idea for the monopoly argument makes sense, but he doesn't account for (or doesn't want to): government pressure and greed.
The idea that the monopoly is the dream for tech development keeps showing it's no dream at all in the end, it's a nightmare with massive costs: mental health, international policy, environment, cultural, etc.
it's the audience of the website. Even though most people here seem to fall into the American liberal camp due to the fact that it's a tech site there's a strong "regulation=bad" undercurrent in the posting that's also been prevalent in the industry, in particular in SV for the last few decades.
Was anyone arguing that we oppose the EU because we don't trust the US? I don't understand how this statement ties into the comments that precede it.
> but there seems to be a reflexive (negative) response from many posters here regarding any new regulation that the EU produces.
There's no way someone's experience with states does not usually influence their opinions towards states, consciously or not.
Take gun control for example, fire arms wouldn't get you far if you're taking on the government (which was the original purpose of America's gun laws). However many individuals will use every excuse under the sun to argue that gun control encroaches their basic freedoms despite all the evidence suggesting gun control would benefit society greatly.
It's a bit like how the UK's referendum was decided on a matter of "sovereignty" with many UK citizens believing leaving the EU gave them their sovereignty back. It makes very little since when you actually break down what "sovereignty" actually means, the actual relationship the UK has with the EU and even the terms of which the UK prospered when it was considered a "great nation" (namely the exploitation of developing countries). Yet many "Brits" still believe independence is the way forward because they don't identify themselves as being European.
I'm a big fan of regulation to maintain good markets / good practices.
I'm very sympathetic to the spirit of a lot of EU policies, but the actual laws seem a lot like "old man who doesn't understand internet writes law" and at best whiff entirely at the point.
Example, I think it is terribly misguided to think people care / read cookie banners and they're not helping / educating anyone.
I don't doubt there are a lot of conservative POVs regarding regulation on HN, but I propose that just as often folks are running into a sort of "narcissism of small differences" where I share a lot of the values those laws have .... but man it irks me to see them swing and miss so badly.
My understanding still is that cookie banners are a huge waste of time.
The GDPR doesn't say: "If you post an obnoxious banner on your site you are allowed to continue as before".
AFAIK, and no one here has proven me wrong so far it says something like:
- there needs to be a clear reason for why the customers data should stay with you or your partners
- except for health care, jail etc there needs to be clear voluntary opt in
They are already fining companies and I guess the reason not everyone is feeling it yet is because the wheels of justice grinds slowly.
Edit: that said, I see why it might look different as some companies are quite brazen in their noncompliance.
Voluntary opt in can work together with targeted ads:
- the customer can opt in to receive more relevant ads (hopefully). A note on the page with an explanation and a way to actively choose targeted would probably be OK with me and I guess some people would choose it.
- or the customer ignores the notice and get general or hopefully contextual ads
The current in-your-face-and-defaults-to-track-if-you-follow -the-defaults system however is not voluntary and not opt in IMO.
I generally don't think the banners educate or help anyone and folks are happy to hit accept and roll on. Not much has changed.
As for if people run a site based on add revenue or not is sort of an entirely different issue / I don't think folks would like the results.
My guess is: They are not happy. They accept it because a lot of effort is put in dark patterns to make it seem unavoidable.
Also a lot of effort seems to have been put into making the opt-in alternative the default - to the point where I'm not comfortable calling it opt-in any more.
> The GDPR doesn't say: "If you post an obnoxious banner on your site you are allowed to continue as before".
The cookie banners have nothing to do with GDPR. That stems from Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX...
The old cookie banners where more static I think, only pointing out that they were using cookies instead of giving you any option at all.
But there have also been other events and developments that did (and do) help / educate people, and now the cookie banners help those people realise how utterly widespread the problem actually is.
It's slow, but awareness is growing, and even the ridiculous cookie banners play some part in it. Also, being ridiculous on the internet is not a failure state, there's quite a tradition of it.
But I have yet to see a person demanding less regulation for something who didn't change their mind when faced with a problem with that something which could have been solved by (some) regulation.
In the same time there are lots of weird regulations, for example in some US states you need to have a training and a professional license to be a florist. In my country I had to take a 1.5 year training for something that can be learned in 3 weeks; I also had to take 9 exams every 2 years just to extend my pilot license, something that does not happen in other EU countries. Or taking a training (classroom and flight time) to be allowed to fly with a passenger in a 2 seater plane, and only if you have at least 150 hours a Pilot In Command. There is nothing like this anywhere else, it's just typical stupid regulation.
Another weird regulation is flying in Bulgarian airspace, where the class G (free airspace below flight level 105) is anything but free.
But let's see how it pans out. A good step in the right direction, not the goal everybody wants, but a good first step at least.
The big thing that sticks out for me is mobile phones: before EU regs, every manufacturer and phone variant had a different charging cable and roaming charges were insane.
Likewise, for all the hate it got here, GDPR has been amazing from my perspective. It was rare before to have a website that actually let you delete anything, it was just "deactivate your account" where they kept all your data. Now most sites offer true deletion.
Meanwhile, the public got sold on Brexit with a consistent diet of rubbish articles from the Mail and friends about bent bananas being banned.
In the UK, it's hard to spend more than £20/month (for sim only at least)
Partly that could be explained by lower population density.
Also services like Visible started to appear. They offer unlimited talk and data for $40.
[1] https://www.vodafone.com.au/plans/state/sim/month-to-month/
Maybe "insane" was a bad word choice. But it's more than triple the price (£20 is $25, not $30, and $70 excludes tax)
I really don't think so. Look at e.g. Finland.
The simplest explanation is real competition via virtual operators.
Mint [1], is $20/mo for unlimited data (throttled after 8GB), using the T-Mobile network. You get a discount for committing to a time period such as 1 year.
Visible [2] is $40/mo for "unlimited everything" (data, calls, text). This is Verizon's low-cost product on their own network.
Simple [3] is $40/mo for 15 GB, also using T-Mobile. You're throttled to 2G after that, though.
These are MVNOs, which are resellers that don't own their own networks. Traffic is deprioritized compared to the parent network's "native" customers. In practice, you might not notice at all, depending on how you use it. Deprioritization really only happens during congestion. During rush hour on the NYC subway might be a time you'd be affected, for example.
The EU only steps in when corporations have already failed to regulate themselves.
Market can bring prices down if competing corporations in the same sector don't agree to set prices for the same range of services of products. That's it.
Self-regulation is conservative non-sense.
As a case study, take advertising in the UK.
The Advertising Standards Authority is a Big Deal. It can ban advertising on TV, in print, on billboards and online. Its decisions regularly make the headlines.[0]
It also has no statutory basis, it's a private limited liability company, and they receive no money from government.[1]
[0] An example from today, here's a news article about a ruling by the ASA concerning a tweet sent out by Burger King: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49895800
- EU phone roaming makes travel much less stressful, independent of the cost factor, which at $0 is also great.
- EU immigration rules for 3rd country partners means it only requires about 3 or 4 hours work and 51 euros in total and only proof of 6 months co-habitation.
- EU mandated ESC and TPMS in cars means my bottom of the range Kia Rio had two really valuable features while maintaining a really low price.
On the other hand:
- I can't get a mortgage because my income is not denominated in euros because others have been burnt by cross currency loans
You gain real benefits but lose flexibility.
this isn't the correct thread to discuss this but i'll bite - it isn't that others were burnt, it's that the banks were stupid enough to actually loan out as much money in a currency that people hadn't had income in and when the inevitable came, it was the banks that had bigger problems. i don't want the bank to lose my money if you and a few thousand others suddenly default on their mortgage at the same time.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johns...
Recent examples: it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters. In the Netherlands, 80% of firefighers are volunteers. The current system works very well, and this is new regulation is likely to cause massive problems. It will be impossible the maintain current quality, because it is impossible to maintain a huge paid workforce just for occasional large incidents. For example, in a recent large fire there were over a hundred firefighters active, most of them volunteers. Moreover many volunteers do it for fun, or to contribute something to society, and do not want to be a paid firefighter, or would not be able to because of their main job. Thanks, EU.
Another one: EU wants to register every single chicken. Not just commercial chicken farms, every single chicken would have to be registered, even for hobbyists having a few chickens running around in their back yard.
Read the replies to your original post, there was no new regulation, whatever you read in the news was made up. In the british press there is a constant stream of fabricated stories about EU "regulations" that take a cursory google to disprove.
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
No idea if there is a Netherlands equivalent.
1. I should have said "impossible" rather than illegal (although the consequence is still that it would be, well, illegal under EU law). That's the implication of what was reported in the Netherlands. For those who read Dutch, see e.g. https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/brandweer-dreigt-vrijwilligers-.... and https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/vrijwilligers-b....
2. I was mainly talking about about (the effect of) overregulation in general, I did not say there is a specific regulation re volunteer firefighters. But if the implied problems become reality, it would be because of interpretation of laws and regulations.
Yes, there was a lawsuit in Belgium. And no, that's not the main issue that was reported here. Lawyers conducted a study of the practice of Dutch firefighting on behalve of the Ministry of Justice and Security, and concluded that the way our system is set up contradicts EU law. The main issue is that volunteer firefighters do almost exactly the same work as paid firefighers.
3. That's point 1.
4. This is exactly my more general concern about the EU: unintended consequences are inevitable when you are centralizing laws and regulations to the most detailed levels for over two dozen countries with very different contexts. There are plenty of EU laws and regulations for which I think the intent is very sensible, but where implementation can be problematic, or problematic for specific subsets of the regulation, or specific countries/regions.
5. I never said they happened, I said "will". Perhaps I should have said "may" since the problem might still be addressed somehow. But even if it is adressed, in the case of the Netherlands a massive change would be necessary. According to lawyers and law professors who have studied the problem in the Dutch context.
So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
The EU law states no worker can work more than X hours a week, for the health benefit of the citizens. A court ruled that the volunteer firefighters time counts as working time. So now we need to include that in how we make them work when we need.
Knowing my country (France), I'm sure it will be some sort of "the hours worked as voluntary firefighter are not due to their other employer, but will still be paid probably by the state or by the employer but with according tax deduction", something like this.
So now comes a choice; either we think it's unhealthy for people to work more than 42 hours a week (and we did since we voted this in), and then it makes sense. Or we don't, and then we're free to change the regulation. Or we think some form or work shouldn't count against that limit (such as public work for emergency services) and we can update the regulation.
Saying we shouldn't make regulation because sometime we may have to redefine more precisely some of its details when the situation arise makes very little sense to me.
> Saying we shouldn't make regulation because sometime we may have to redefine more precisely some of its details when the situation arise makes very little sense to me.
My concern is both practical and philosophical: our firefighting system will very likely be reorganized; this is going to cost a lot of money and time, volunteers are likely to quit if things are no longer easily combined with their job, quality would almost certainly drop (since it's already high), and then, hopefully, in the end we still have a functioning firefighting service. But all that work will not actually solve any problem, it's just for complying with regulations.
On the philosphical end: the complexity and the number of laws and regulations keeps growing, and so does the scale at which they're applied. I think such unintended consequences will keep coming up at the local level, far from where they originated centrally, and in the long run it will be increasingly difficult to solve these problems.
We have this law to avoid abusing "free" people as volunteer, which eg in France is important against lots of things like illegal immigrant ("I don't pay you but you can sleep there !"), and to ensure egality (in France we have an even stricter law which is basically "for the same work, same salary", to avoid discrimination against various ethnics, gender, age ... difference).
If you / the NL people are saying this cause an issue, and the law should be changed to, for exemple, not include free work done for emergency public services, then it simply means we need to add a precision to the law to cover that specific case.
And if it isn't done, then it means "all those affected countries" either didn't push for it or failed to convince the whole of the EU to change the regulation.
EU regulation are done by EU MPs all coming from their respective EU countries to improve the situation there, they don't implement things randomly in a vacuum. If the regulation needs to be adapted, it's easy, given those who want it can make a case for it.
There are different blockers in the system so that a (slim) majority can't simply overrule a minority.
Most of that tends to be misinformation.
For example:
> it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters
Nope. Not even close. A firefighter in Belgium sued because he said that on-call time is work, and the court decided in his favour. This caused concern that generalising this could cause problems. However, the EU was aware of these concerns and apparently this case cannot be generalised in this way:
https://www.ctif.org/news/die-eu-arbeitszeitrichtlinie-infor...
I don't know how it works in Belgium, but in Germany, the voluntary firefighters (which is almost all of them), simply continue to be paid by their main employers when active. The employer can then recover this from the responsible government organisation.
For this, the application of the working time directive changes...nothing. Also for standby times during working hours, for which the employee is working for his main employer, so again no change. I am guessing (but not sure) that the issue is on-call time when the employee is not working for his main employer.
People have raised concerns that this might have the potential to negatively affect volunteer firefighting. But as far as I know, nothing has actually happened, and apparently nothing will.
So as so often, almost complete misinformation:
1. The EU will not make it "illegal" to have volunteer firefighters.
2. It was actually a lawsuit, not a regulation.
3. It was about working time, not about making volunteer firefighters illegal.
4. So at most it would have been an unintended consequence of a good and necessary regulation.
5. However, these unintended consequences were only imaginary, they never happened.
6. The EU bodies were fully aware of the importance of volunteer firefighters.
7. Had there been unintended consequences, they would have mostly been of the formal variety that affect local authorities.
> every single chicken [..] registered, even for hobbyists having a few chickens
Also nope, only if you have 50 chickens or more.
https://www.tsk-bw.de/Melde_Beitragspflicht/Wer_muss_melden....
As for the chickens: you are linking to what look like current regulations in Germany. At issue is the Animal Health Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:201...) which will be in effect from 21 April 2021.
There is a statement that there should be exceptions for pet animals, but these exceptions did not make it into the regulation for chickens. The Netherlands argued for this but did not find support, and is currently trying to arrange for exceptions. It is not fake news.
If for some reason you believe "obligation of operators to register establishments" would apply to individual pet owners (I don't believe it does, as earlier in the document "pet keepers" are separate from "operators") - there's a clause to allow exceptions: "Member States may exempt from the registration requirement certain categories of establishments posing an insignificant risk"
The only thing in the entire document that applies to "pet keepers" is ... [to] be responsible for:
(i) the health of kept animals;
(ii) prudent and responsible use of veterinary medicines, without prejudice to the role and responsibility of veterinarians,
(iii) minimising the risk of the spread of diseases;
(iv) good animal husbandry;
There are some further restrictions to do with moving pet animals between member states
I'm trusting here that the Dutch minister of agriculture is being accurate in her letter to parliament describing ongoing issues [0].
0: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-28286-1062.html
"For example, holders who only have a few pieces of poultry must also comply with requirements for I&R and there will also be obligations for holders of animal species for which no requirements currently exist, such as bees, bumble bees and camel-like animals. The Netherlands has argued against these requirements when drafting these new regulations, but received little support from other member states and the EC. The EC indicated that it can allow Member States to grant exceptions to these obligations."
So it's up to member states if they want to require owners of pet chickens to register them
OK, so what's the problem? After all, this won't come into effect until about a year and a half from now and it seems that there is agreement that there should be exceptions.
Given that, what makes you certain that there won't be exceptions?
> is currently trying to arrange for exceptions
You seem to be certain that this will not succeed. Why?
> It is not fake news.
Hmm...it's not in effect, there seems to be some agreement that there should be exceptions and exceptions are being worked on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't know what will happen, but this situation is concerning to many people. Also consider that the news plays a role in policy making (for better or worse), i.e. some added pressure from advocates may help to get the needed exceptions in place.
And neither is the regulation.
> this situation is concerning to many people.
That's not the same thing as there being an actual problem.
2. I was mainly talking about about (the effect of) overregulation in general, I did not say there is a specific regulation re volunteer firefighters. But if the implied problems become reality, it would be because of interpretation of laws and regulations.
Yes, there was a lawsuit in Belgium. And no, that's not the main issue that was reported here. Lawyers conducted a study of the practice of Dutch firefighting on behalve of the Ministry of Justice and Security, and concluded that the way our system is set up contradicts EU law. The main issue is that volunteer firefighters do almost exactly the same work as paid firefighers.
3. That's point 1.
4. This is exactly my more general concern about the EU: unintended consequences are inevitable when you are centralizing laws and regulations to the most detailed levels for over two dozen countries with very different contexts. There are plenty of EU laws and regulations for which I think the intent is very sensible, but where implementation can be problematic, or problematic for specific subsets of the regulation, or specific countries/regions.
5. I never said they happened, I said "will". Perhaps I should have said "may" since the problem might still be addressed somehow. But even if it is adressed, in the case of the Netherlands a massive change would be necessary. According to lawyers and law professors who have studied the problem in the Dutch context.
So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
And that would have been still wrong, though with less hyperbole.
> So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
From: there was an isolated case that, had it been generalisable, had the potential for making some aspects of voluntary fire brigades trickier if not addressed, but that actually wasn't generalisable and there was actually no problem at all to "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters" is not "somewhat imprecise", it is complete misinformation.
Pretty much the definition of misinformation, in fact.
Because this is exactly how a lot of the misinformation regarding the EU works: you take something highly technical, localised and actually benign, then take 2nd hand reports of people who misunderstood the implications/consequences, take those misunderstandings as fact, extrapolate from them and then ratchet up the hyperbole to 11.
And no, the fact that lawyers did a study doesn't really change any of this. The EU is a political body, and the largest member states have large or almost exclusively voluntary fire-departments. So even if the interpretation were correct, which from all I have seen it is absolutely not, it would simply (a) not be applied and/or (b) changed.
In particular: the working time directive is, as the name says, a directive. This means it just specifies some goal(s) to accomplish, and it is up to the member states to implement national legislation to accomplish those goals. So if they need to carve out exceptions for volunteer fire departments, they can do that.
So yes: "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters" is just wrong and not just a slight imprecision, but pure misinformation.
I reiterate that the isolated case you're referring to was not the motivation of experts saying the Dutch system will have to be reorganized. Why don't you acknowledge that maybe there is an actual problem here, which perhaps doesn't apply in other contexts? I.e. maybe the German and French volunteer firefighters are organized in such a way that there is no problem?
The original claim was "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters."
> maybe the German and French volunteer firefighters are organized in such a way that there is no problem?
I sincerely doubt it. Particularly because those concerns apparently were raised in both France and Germany. Anyway, if you can find some evidence that this is the case, please feel free to share.
(General principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence)
It is also clear that no "regultation" is being planned.
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-00020...
On the other hand, one thing the EU is genuinely bad at is the "small operator" exemptions which UK law is generally good at. They very rarely exist in EU law.