Did you read it?
jurmous's points seem to be aligned with the article.
jurmous's points seem to be aligned with the article.
I have read the article and I found it very thin on the details regarding any specifics on what exactly "tariffing big tech" would be, especially that StarLink mentioned in the article is not really "big tech" in EU, but more of a niche ISP.
Which is why I believe he didn't read it, plus the general trend of HN users to rush to comment without reading the articles that's a meme at this point, which only results in low quality emotionally charged rants being upvoted to the top even though they have little to do with the article in the topic.
And the actual big-tech would be more difficult to tariff since their products don't cross any customs like star link, but are all sold by companies registered in the EU, same how example Fords are also manufactured in the EU to get around tariffs.
In terms of your comment, they didn't say Starlink is big tech. The paragraph in question separates them with the word "another example":
> A fightback could include restrictions on the intellectual property of Big Tech companies. Another example would be banning Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network from winning government contracts.
As for big tech examples examples, the article did mention revoking of patents, or obstructing revenues on software updates and streaming. But yeah, the article is otherwise thin on details wrt big tech, primarily because it's not focusing on that topic specifically.