Item — HN Reader

> Those that wish to operate must comply

Well, that is exactly the effective force I'm talking about. Can you imagine Apple not operating in Europe?

However, this is "legal" authority. I'm trying to discuss the more subtle moral authority: Many even inside the continent, do not accept the moral authority of the EU. and they also use that "arbitrarily" word to justify their claims. So why not discuss that word in detail ?

I’m not for downvoting replies to death. I’m more for letting people define their words better. It sometimes works. Sometimes.

2 comments

> Can you imagine Apple not operating in Europe?

Sure, we do after all have the example of some (non-Apple) companies not operating in China, a similarly important market. If Apple really believe their own rhetoric about how the only way to protect their users is for Apple to control the experience, they'll pull out of Europe rather than compromise on their users' security.

Europe is not China.

I just talked about how this is about moral authority VS legal one. Here it is about commercial markets VS cultural centres.

Europe is not just a market. Europe is the (historical) centre of the western world. I don't think big tech can/want to leave it. If they say so, IMO they are just bluffing.

There are both monetary and strategic reasons for global corporations to operate in Europe of course, just as there are with other areas of the world.

But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so solely on their own terms.

Countries can set the terms they want. That is the meaning of sovereignty. Some of them have rules that constrain their legislature somewhat (a constitution) and some of them try to set rules that at least to some degree conform to the will of the people living there (democracies).

These principles have not come about from nothing, so I wouldn't call them arbitrary.

> These principles have not come about from nothing, so I wouldn't call them arbitrary.

I did not either. I was just using his exact expression, in an effort to let him explain himself.

I can understand how offending that word is for some. Just wonder at all that bloody european history and superhuman effort to rationally get over it...

> Many even inside the continent, do not accept the moral authority of the EU.

True, so much so that many, just outside of the continent, decided to leave the EU.

Insofar as they were in the EU though, they were bound by its laws.

This is no different from any other set of laws. Many in any country, state or other political organisation disagree with some law. They may choose to leave. They may choose to enact activism against said laws. They may not, without being subject to penalties, break said law.

Is it moral? Is it not? That's for societies to decide. If you're in the EU and you find the EU as a whole is not favourable to your country, you can start a campaign to leave. If, on the other hand, you just find that a specific law or another are wrong, you can write to your representatives, campaign to vote them out, etc.

Those are the (imperfect) workings of most democracies we know.

> Can you imagine Apple not operating in Europe?

I can. I don't think they will though. Why? Because even with the very few regulations that might reduce their ability to profit, it is still less profitable to leave the EU market. If eventually they find that not to be the case, they can lobby, campaign or leave.