8 ms·

There's a big difference between governments regulating to benefit their own control and power, and regulating in favor of consumers. Most regulation in the EU

There's a big difference between governments regulating to benefit their own control and power, and regulating in favor of consumers. Most regulation in the EU have jack-all to do with consumers. There's a couple of niceties - having all prices displayed in comparable unites (EUR/kg, EUR/liter etc). But apart from that the regulation have broadly served as moats around the largest businesses.

boonzeet 9d ago
There are many EU directives which benefit consumers directly in tech, including, but not limited to: Consumer rights - 14 day cooling off period for online purchases Sale of goods - 2 year seller liability for defective goods Right to repair - likely doesn’t need explanation, require manufacturers to offer repairs and replacement parts Unfair commercial practices - prevent misleading or deceptive advertising Unfair contract terms directive - prevents disproportionately one-sided provisions in T&Cs (think Disney giving themselves legal immunity for a free Disney+ trial) The EU’s problem seems to be in communicating its benefits to its citizens.
- ricardobayes 9d ago
  I wouldn't even call it a communication problem - I believe it's more a media problem, than anything. Good news are minimized and bad news are amplified to the maximum - nowadays even broadsheet newspapers operate with tabloid headlines, and that is really bad. We somehow need to "want" a slower news cycle and simultaneously push back against the algorithmic outrage. The world is more predictable and safer than ever but the perception of the average person is not this, it's manufactured outrage at every possible opportunity and topic. Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago, almost none feel that way and that is almost 100% due to the news algorithms being tuned to keep you in a constant dread cycle.
  - prolly97 9d ago
    >Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago I'm sure it's true, but do we have some statistics on that, and a comparison to places that doesn't have the same regulatory burden?
    - ricardobayes 9d ago
      I can quote the German BKA: number of crimes in 2016: 6,372,526 number of crimes in 2025 (last data): 5,508,559 https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2016/pcs2016_node.html https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCr... https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2025/pcs2025_node.html https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCr...
      - prolly97 9d ago
        Awesome! But, looking at the numbers the decrease in totals are due to fewer registered "street crimes", less fraud and legalization of cannabis (removing a 183k comparable from 2016). Violent crimes however went from 193,542 to 212,335. With rapes almost doubling, going from 7,919 to 14,454 (82%). Murders remained stable though. We can debate which of these crimes have a greater impact on the feeling of safety. Personally I don't really feel unsafe due to people being caught stealing a sweater or smoking weed (when that was illegal). So I don't think this is as clear cut as the headline number makes it seem. I feel like it's valid if people want to put more weight on the violent crimes.
        cindyllm 9d ago
        [dead]
- nickpp 9d ago
  > cooling off [...] seller liability [...] Right to repair Let's not forget I am paying directly for those when I buy a product. Those benefits are not free, they cost money. The money has to come from somewhere. It can't come from profits (since those are the sacred reason the company exists in the first place) thus they will come from higher prices. Higher product prices mean less competitive companies. It also means fewer startups which must implement the required regulation no matter the market says. Then you need protectionism against Chinese competition. But the worst is that I must pay for those benefits whether if I want them or not. Thus my choice is reduced. I cannot vote with my wallet and send price signals in the market to tell sellers that I want those benefits or not and at what price. The market gets corrupted. The economy falters. Outside competitors gain. The Government needs to intervene again and again, growing stronger and more intrusive "for my own benefit". It's the decay spiral we are witnessing here in the EU right now.
  - prolly97 9d ago
    This!!! I went to California earlier this year. In our apartment we had a freezer that was clearly made before politicians thought to decide to put a cap on how good a freezer could be. It was fucking amazing at freezing stuff. No freezer I've ever used could freeze this good. It was probably from the 80's - old/sturdy AF. I wouldn't mind paying for some extra solar panels to feed it.
    - boonzeet 9d ago
      I’m not sure that’s a function of regulation but more a function of most modern freezers defaulting to -18°, where an American or industrial freezer is -22 to -28°C. Getting a better energy efficiency score is one reason (and consumers are motivated on running cost, not just environmental) but presumably these are cheaper to manufacture as well. I have an American style, EU-compliant freezer than I can set to -26° which I bought for preparing sashimi safely. It rocks! Highly recommend them.
      - prolly97 9d ago
        haha, yes, this is 100% just me overfitting then! And it's not as if there aren't a bunch of somewhat arbitrary regulation in the US either. But the general sense I got from the US, was that people still feel agency to improve their reality, and that there's fewer artificial barriers to that end. (Except for building houses in California. omg. That sounds like a horrible horrible process. At least for those I spoke to).
pdhborges 9d ago
Do you believe I can't get a list of 20 effective pro-consumer regulations drafted by the EU out of Gemini?
- nickpp 9d ago
  Maybe you should get that list from the European AI products that came from those awesome EU regulations.
- prolly97 9d ago
  I don't think you're taking my "there's two sides to regulation" comment in good faith. I gave a pretty clear example of pro-consumer regulation myself. Saying that the EU is overregulating cannot possibly be that controversial, given that even the European politicians are beginning to admit it.. Draghi, Von der Leyen (even though she passes blame), Merz, Macron.
  - pdhborges 9d ago
    I took it in good faith I just think that: - the overregulation narrative conflates two different problems - and that you minimized too much the consumer benefits of EU legislation I think the overregulation problem olis less that we have 200 EU regulations and we need to hack and slash 100 of them and more that we have 100 national regulations 25 are exact transcriptions of EU directives, 25 are transcriptions with tweaks and the other 50 are national scoped regulations and what we need to do is to make them uniform so that companies don't have to deal with 27x75 problems. I'm a bit burned by politicians using the overregulation narrative and then not specifying a single example of a meaningfull rule that they would get rid of. Usually what is left in the air is that worker rights and consumer rights should be cut.
vrganj 9d ago
That's not even true in the concrete case we're talking about here. As part of the AI Act, an important decision on a person (such as a hiring decision) cannot be made without human involvement. You think that's not in favor of "consumers"? (also note the implicitly submissive framing of humans as receptacles for consumption instead of subjects with rights!)
- prolly97 9d ago
  Why shouldn't it be possible to completely automate decisions? Imaginary entry level job, where you need to deliver parcels from one business to another. Qualifications: 1. Drivers license. 2: Eyes in your head. Applicant 1: Drivers license? No. Eyes in your head? Yes. Applicant 2: Drivers license? Yes. Eyes in your head? Yes. Reject applicant 1 and accept applicant 2. Ez. I'd prefer to work at a place that uses it's ressources on things that provide value. If we're able to conserve ressources by automating hiring, I'm all for it. I don't want to take a pay-cut to hire meat-proxies.
  - dns_snek 9d ago
    > (48) The extent of the adverse impact caused by the AI system on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter is of particular relevance when classifying an AI system as high risk. Those rights include the right to human dignity, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, the right to non-discrimination, the right to education, consumer protection, workers’ rights, the rights of persons with disabilities, gender equality, intellectual property rights, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, and the right to good administration. [...] > (57) AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self-employment, in particular for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions affecting terms of the work-related relationship, promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships, for allocating tasks on the basis of individual behaviour, personal traits or characteristics and for monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, > should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may have an appreciable impact on future career prospects, livelihoods of those persons and workers’ rights. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should, in a meaningful manner, involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. > Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of such persons may also undermine their fundamental rights to data protection and privacy I suggest reading the regulation(s), it usually does a good job laying down the reasoning in the preamble. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

boonzeet 9d ago

There are many EU directives which benefit consumers directly in tech, including, but not limited to: Consumer rights - 14 day cooling off period for online purchases Sale of goods - 2 year seller liability for defective goods Right to repair - likely doesn’t need explanation, require manufacturers to offer repairs and replacement parts Unfair commercial practices - prevent misleading or deceptive advertising Unfair contract terms directive - prevents disproportionately one-sided provisions in T&Cs (think Disney giving themselves legal immunity for a free Disney+ trial) The EU’s problem seems to be in communicating its benefits to its citizens.

ricardobayes 9d ago
I wouldn't even call it a communication problem - I believe it's more a media problem, than anything. Good news are minimized and bad news are amplified to the maximum - nowadays even broadsheet newspapers operate with tabloid headlines, and that is really bad. We somehow need to "want" a slower news cycle and simultaneously push back against the algorithmic outrage. The world is more predictable and safer than ever but the perception of the average person is not this, it's manufactured outrage at every possible opportunity and topic. Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago, almost none feel that way and that is almost 100% due to the news algorithms being tuned to keep you in a constant dread cycle.
- prolly97 9d ago
  >Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago I'm sure it's true, but do we have some statistics on that, and a comparison to places that doesn't have the same regulatory burden?
  - ricardobayes 9d ago
    I can quote the German BKA: number of crimes in 2016: 6,372,526 number of crimes in 2025 (last data): 5,508,559 https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2016/pcs2016_node.html https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCr... https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2025/pcs2025_node.html https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/Statistics/PoliceCr...
    - prolly97 9d ago
      Awesome! But, looking at the numbers the decrease in totals are due to fewer registered "street crimes", less fraud and legalization of cannabis (removing a 183k comparable from 2016). Violent crimes however went from 193,542 to 212,335. With rapes almost doubling, going from 7,919 to 14,454 (82%). Murders remained stable though. We can debate which of these crimes have a greater impact on the feeling of safety. Personally I don't really feel unsafe due to people being caught stealing a sweater or smoking weed (when that was illegal). So I don't think this is as clear cut as the headline number makes it seem. I feel like it's valid if people want to put more weight on the violent crimes.
      - cindyllm 9d ago
        [dead]
nickpp 9d ago
> cooling off [...] seller liability [...] Right to repair Let's not forget I am paying directly for those when I buy a product. Those benefits are not free, they cost money. The money has to come from somewhere. It can't come from profits (since those are the sacred reason the company exists in the first place) thus they will come from higher prices. Higher product prices mean less competitive companies. It also means fewer startups which must implement the required regulation no matter the market says. Then you need protectionism against Chinese competition. But the worst is that I must pay for those benefits whether if I want them or not. Thus my choice is reduced. I cannot vote with my wallet and send price signals in the market to tell sellers that I want those benefits or not and at what price. The market gets corrupted. The economy falters. Outside competitors gain. The Government needs to intervene again and again, growing stronger and more intrusive "for my own benefit". It's the decay spiral we are witnessing here in the EU right now.
- prolly97 9d ago
  This!!! I went to California earlier this year. In our apartment we had a freezer that was clearly made before politicians thought to decide to put a cap on how good a freezer could be. It was fucking amazing at freezing stuff. No freezer I've ever used could freeze this good. It was probably from the 80's - old/sturdy AF. I wouldn't mind paying for some extra solar panels to feed it.
  - boonzeet 9d ago
    I’m not sure that’s a function of regulation but more a function of most modern freezers defaulting to -18°, where an American or industrial freezer is -22 to -28°C. Getting a better energy efficiency score is one reason (and consumers are motivated on running cost, not just environmental) but presumably these are cheaper to manufacture as well. I have an American style, EU-compliant freezer than I can set to -26° which I bought for preparing sashimi safely. It rocks! Highly recommend them.
    - prolly97 9d ago
      haha, yes, this is 100% just me overfitting then! And it's not as if there aren't a bunch of somewhat arbitrary regulation in the US either. But the general sense I got from the US, was that people still feel agency to improve their reality, and that there's fewer artificial barriers to that end. (Except for building houses in California. omg. That sounds like a horrible horrible process. At least for those I spoke to).

pdhborges 9d ago

Do you believe I can't get a list of 20 effective pro-consumer regulations drafted by the EU out of Gemini?

nickpp 9d ago
Maybe you should get that list from the European AI products that came from those awesome EU regulations.
prolly97 9d ago
I don't think you're taking my "there's two sides to regulation" comment in good faith. I gave a pretty clear example of pro-consumer regulation myself. Saying that the EU is overregulating cannot possibly be that controversial, given that even the European politicians are beginning to admit it.. Draghi, Von der Leyen (even though she passes blame), Merz, Macron.
- pdhborges 9d ago
  I took it in good faith I just think that: - the overregulation narrative conflates two different problems - and that you minimized too much the consumer benefits of EU legislation I think the overregulation problem olis less that we have 200 EU regulations and we need to hack and slash 100 of them and more that we have 100 national regulations 25 are exact transcriptions of EU directives, 25 are transcriptions with tweaks and the other 50 are national scoped regulations and what we need to do is to make them uniform so that companies don't have to deal with 27x75 problems. I'm a bit burned by politicians using the overregulation narrative and then not specifying a single example of a meaningfull rule that they would get rid of. Usually what is left in the air is that worker rights and consumer rights should be cut.

vrganj 9d ago

That's not even true in the concrete case we're talking about here. As part of the AI Act, an important decision on a person (such as a hiring decision) cannot be made without human involvement. You think that's not in favor of "consumers"? (also note the implicitly submissive framing of humans as receptacles for consumption instead of subjects with rights!)

prolly97 9d ago
Why shouldn't it be possible to completely automate decisions? Imaginary entry level job, where you need to deliver parcels from one business to another. Qualifications: 1. Drivers license. 2: Eyes in your head. Applicant 1: Drivers license? No. Eyes in your head? Yes. Applicant 2: Drivers license? Yes. Eyes in your head? Yes. Reject applicant 1 and accept applicant 2. Ez. I'd prefer to work at a place that uses it's ressources on things that provide value. If we're able to conserve ressources by automating hiring, I'm all for it. I don't want to take a pay-cut to hire meat-proxies.
- dns_snek 9d ago
  > (48) The extent of the adverse impact caused by the AI system on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter is of particular relevance when classifying an AI system as high risk. Those rights include the right to human dignity, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and of association, the right to non-discrimination, the right to education, consumer protection, workers’ rights, the rights of persons with disabilities, gender equality, intellectual property rights, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the right of defence and the presumption of innocence, and the right to good administration. [...] > (57) AI systems used in employment, workers management and access to self-employment, in particular for the recruitment and selection of persons, for making decisions affecting terms of the work-related relationship, promotion and termination of work-related contractual relationships, for allocating tasks on the basis of individual behaviour, personal traits or characteristics and for monitoring or evaluation of persons in work-related contractual relationships, > should also be classified as high-risk, since those systems may have an appreciable impact on future career prospects, livelihoods of those persons and workers’ rights. Relevant work-related contractual relationships should, in a meaningful manner, involve employees and persons providing services through platforms as referred to in the Commission Work Programme 2021. > Throughout the recruitment process and in the evaluation, promotion, or retention of persons in work-related contractual relationships, such systems may perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination, for example against women, certain age groups, persons with disabilities, or persons of certain racial or ethnic origins or sexual orientation. AI systems used to monitor the performance and behaviour of such persons may also undermine their fundamental rights to data protection and privacy I suggest reading the regulation(s), it usually does a good job laying down the reasoning in the preamble. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng