[flagged]
There's nothing special about US software engineering vs. software engineering made elsewhere from a purely technical and know-how point of view.
The key difference is availability of capital and appetite for risk that make US exceptional by enabling a speed of scaling and execution not possible anywhere else (well, other than China).
If US companies that can't be bothered to follow EU laws leave the +500M people market that is the EU, I'm positive some other equally competent alternative (local or otherwise) would appear sooner or later to fill in the gap.
The EU has some extremely strong consumer protection laws, which is excellent for consumers, but it comes with downsides too.
Nah, it's all the capital which gets invested into the US caused by the dollar's role in international payments that drives the US exceptionalism is tech.
Like, 65% of world equity value relates to 4% of the world population. That's not sustainable long-term, and if something cannot go on forever, then one day it will stop (and we might be seeing that start to happen now).
Don't get me wrong, the US market has a bunch of advantages (large, one language, standard regulation) but it's mostly all the capital sloshing around that drives the outperformance of the US tech companies.
There is a huge culture difference: Having spent time in both countries, an entrepreneurial spirit is valued far more in American culture and is far more present than in the EU.
Which countries did you spend time in?
I would still maintain that the reason the US is more entreprenuerial right now is because it's easier to get capital (particularly for tech focused businesses). Now, some of that is because of previous tech exits, some of it is culture but to maintain that the differences in capital don't have a large impact is also pretty reductionist.
The Digital Markets Act is not about a user's right to sideload. It's about 100s of thousands of businesses' right to reach billions of users without Apple in the middle. That's why it's called the Digital Markets Act, not the Phone User Rights Act
This word doesn't simply mean 'I don't like this', you know.
Facebook is under no obligation to operate in Europe. Of course, they make about 40 billion revenue in Europe annually, so they will be inclined to want to stay in Europe. And they can do this! They just have to follow the rules.
In the end, a population has the right to govern itself how it wants. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that - Meta is free to simply not operate in the EU.
There is no actual need for this law. No rights are being infringed on. Just don't use the website.
The Americans call this "stand your ground".
"Deporting brown people without due process? That's how we like it, who are you to complain? You're free to not work with the US, but we know you will!"
Obviously a nuanced and meaningful conversation goes much deeper than "that's how we like it." Why is it such an infringement on user rights to not be allowed to use a website if they don't follow the owner's terms of use? That is unaddressed.
What are Facebook's own services? Or Google's for that matter.
Neither tracks you just when you're on facebook.com or google.com. They track you everywhere.
Why shouldn't Meta be forbidden to track people? It's the law. If they don't want to follow the applicable law in the jurisdiction they operate in they can cease their operations there.