You're viewing a single thread.
Why is it basically only the EU that seems to have an interest in preventing shitty business practices.
Because the US is controlled by corporations
Asia for the most part doesn't care
Australia is run by right wing nut jobs
New Zealand is quiet so they probably do do something like this but we haven't heard about it.
Japan is Japan. Civil rights isn't really a thing.
And China and Russia love invasion of privacy it's basically the entire basis of their countries.
Well actshually... Australia used to be run by right-wing nutjobs. The current mob in power are centrist nut jobs.
The power behind the throne in Australia is still right wing nut jobs and corporations
I feel like Australia and New Zealand is kind of like England and Scotland in that sense.
Australia is essentially just Texas out in a remote corner of the world. Just a bunch of mining and oil companies running a country.
So your telling me Capitalism is destroying the planet everywhere regardless of the nominal government "in charge"?
I'm really curious (as I'm not living there) what the difference is. Is it just their religious tendencies? Or is it their feelings towards the nebulous "other" that defines them?
In Australia there are two major political parties, Labor and Liberals.
Liberals does not mean what it does in the US, they are the right wing party, who are in a coalition with the Nationals party which is even further right wing.
Labor is now centre-right as they kept running on centre-left policies and losing.
The defining difference between the parties on the domestic front are that Labor supports and Liberals oppose
-
Social safety nets
-
Universal medical care
-
Taxation of corporations
On a foreign policy front they parties are broadly aligned however their stance on how to deal (interact) with China is vastly different, where Labor engages the Liberals attack China endlessly which resulted in a trade war which we're still feeling the effects of.
This is a very shallow examination of Australia's political landscape but I'm not a political commentator.
-
I am generally curious what you mean by centrist nut jobs? The whole point of the centre is to be somewhere in the middle and therefore the best of both worlds that everyone has something in common with as far as I’m concerned
There is no "best of both worlds" when one side wants you to be a fucking slave. Wake up, dummy.
How about just a little bit of servitude...?
....wait
“Best of both worlds” doesn't literally mean expressing everything on a numeric scale and averaging it out.
No, we know.
What's the best that should we take from the far right?
It's an ideological desert over there once you look past the race supremacy, inevitable oligarchy and people dying if they don't spend enough of their time struggling to survive. It's literally just psychopathic power grabbing when you really distill it down.
If any of that sounds good to you, I'm not interested in the world you want.
Support for centrism is either complete political ignorance, or looking at that desert and thinking "I think we need some of that shit over here"
Nothing. And neither should we take anything from the far left. It's the moderates that have good ideas.
Okay, humour me then, I'm clearly the ignorant one here.
Let's pretend that this centre which pulls from both sides is completely uninfluenced by the extremes somehow.
What's good about the not-quite-so-right that's unique compared against the far right then?
What's good about the not-quite-so-left that's unique from the far left?
Do these things marry up in a way that's not entirely ideologically bankrupt in the dissonance required?
Some things I like from the left:
- The general idea of changing things that are bad instead of sticking to traditions
- Gay marriage and other rights
- More efficient and affordable healthcare
- Abortion (though ideally I'd find it fair if “paper abortion” was also a thing)
- FOSS (though most people don't have a strong opinion on that)
- Public transportation
Some things I like from the right:
- General cautiousness about the negative effects of new policies (for example, schools catering to problematic students at the expense of the other students)
- Trying to minimize unnecessary government intervention
- Support of free speech (used to be a leftist thing, seems to depend on who is being censored more)
- Cautiousness about illegal immigration
- Banning of harmful addictive drugs
And what I don't like about either:
- Takes on gender/race equality (left tries to achieve it but has a different idea of what equality looks like, right seems content with inequality)
- Voter fraud prevention (right wants the requirement of a driving license or something, left wants no verification at all; I like the normal system of requiring an identity card that every citizen gets for free from the government)
Based on these, I'd consider myself centrist or maybe a bit left-leaning, but the far left would consider me a Nazi and the far right would consider me a communist or something.
Also note that I'm not from the USA and I see USA politics through the lens of what I know to work and not work in my country.
You forgot Africa, South America, Canada, Greenland(?).
Greenland is a part of Denmark so in the EU
Well yes, but actually no. Greenland is part of Denmark, which is in the EU, but Greenland is not in the EU.
But the Data Protection Authority is the same and they have quite similar laws, most likely completely compliant with EU regulations. Both because cultural connections as well as them wanting to position themselves as a location for internet infrastructure.
Countries like Iceland straight-up implement GDPR because EEA. I'd say both could easily be convinced to become EU members by reforming the fisheries policy into something sane, both when it comes to size of quotas (the EU could pull an order of magnitude more fish out of the water if we'd let stocks recover to the levels from 100 years ago) and distribution of quotas -- coasts should be considered (more) like mineral deposits: We're not getting any Austrian silver either why are they getting our fish, if they want to fish they can buy quotas from a coastal state.
I also had to look this up but Greenland is not in the EU
Africa is still developing so data privacy is the least of their concerns. They’re focusing on creating stable corruption free governments that don’t undergo a coup or civil war every 5 years, and having a hell of a time with that.
Africa is an enormous continent, it contains 53 different countries and what you said is only true of a handful of them.
I don't blame you, I blame the eurocentric educational system and news media.
that don’t undergo a coup or civil war every 5 years, and having a hell of a time with that.
If by "having a hell of a time with that" you mean "the US loves shutting down developing nations", absolutely.
There is no evidence the US has been involved in the last several coups, we’ve been supporting efforts at fair democratic processes and development in Africa for years.
Good joke. The US is literally AT ALL TIMES trying to destabilize any country that could potentially pose a problem to their hegemony. As recently as 2022 it has been PROVEN that US agencies tried (unsuccessfully) to undermine Brazilian democracy, as an example. (Before you try to change subjects - yes, Brazil is not in Africa. It's just a concrete example you can't dodge with argumentation).
I would like to point the RWNJs finally got voted out in Oz last year (federal and most states). Of course Murdoch and co. are working hard to reverse that, but semi sane leadership is in place for at least a year or two more.
As with most things in the US, California has similar laws to the gdpr (though admittedly not as powerful), so a lot of websites are starting to change a bit in the US because of california.
China and Russia are dictatorships meaning they do whatever the fucknthey like and if you don't like it you might become suicidal.
Moatly about capitalism i think. If you put on privacy restrictions, you are regulating the market, while capitalism believes that the market should regulate itself, and customers will simply stop using those websites/softwares overtime if its too bad. I find this completely delusional in the era of mega corporations, but thats the capitalistic aproach to this.
EU is capitalist, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you're just another person blaming everything on capitalism because that's easier than understanding the actual problems. Might as well blame it on the prevalent system.
Im not exactly against capitalism, but i do think that a hardcore capitalistic aproach such as the one in the US has many downsides.
Please try not to throw insults or mean assumptions. We are here to discuss.
The EU is a social market economy. It currently slants more capitalist but nothing whatsoever stops member states from taxing the hell out of billionaires shifting it more towards market socialism.
What really doesn't fly in the EU is the free market <-> unregulated market equivocation that peddlers of institutional market failure enjoy so much. The free market model relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information, in the real world you need regulation to approach that ideal. If you want to see actually unregulated markets have a look at black ones where there's not even regulations against offers you can't refuse.
And that's why the EU is legislating things like caps having to stay attached to plastic bottles: Because not doing it would allow companies to continue to externalise microplastic problems they generate and, innovation costing money, they wouldn't do it on their own (the new caps aren't even more expensive per piece it's just some R&D and very small changes to bottling machines.)
capitalism believes that the market should regulate itself
Anarcho-capitalism ⊊ capitalism.
Because they listen to people rather than ignore them and then make policy based on how much money they can make from the deal.
This shows me the EU is actually more democratic then the US is.
It's much harder to pay off the lawmakers to keep the status quo when the economic area is controlled by dozens of individual governments.
This is actually a particularly important point. The nature of the EU is laden with bureaucracy. Combined with the wide range of cultures, and the rotation of staff, it makes bribing enough people to get your way difficult. You end up needing people in multiple countries to deal with it, and the rotations make long term deals difficult.
The end result is that bribing EU bureaucracy is like trying to stop a river with just hands. It's far less effective, letting the EU be a lot more effective (if slow).
There's a reason so many big business interests want to break up the EU.
Shouldn't it be the same in the US with state and federal governments?
All of the states are owned by one of the same two political parties, and their respective goals are more or less aligned on a state-by-state level, bordering on zealotry.
America is, effectively a monoculture. At least in the UK, there is more variance in accents over 100 miles than over all of the US. The EU has a wide selection of languages and cultures, all with deep histories and quirks. Methods that work in 1 culture will be insulting in another. America is practically setup for mass deployment of propaganda and industrial
bribery, sorry lobbying.The US was originally more like the EU but it federalized pretty hard after the civil war.
Brazil also has a similar law called LGPD, I think it was made based on European GDPR
Actually, and I'm quite proud of this, the LGPD was already being discussed before the EU's GDPR. It may not look like it, but Brazil is at the forefront of digital protection and privacy.
Yah, I just get Google to block these sites from ever being recommended again.
Is
briberypolitical donations not a thing in Europe?Because they can't do whatever they want here