- CEOs of European technology companies told CNBC at the Web Summit technology conference this week that the continent should adopt a “Europe-first” approach to tech, after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory.
- Andy Yen, CEO of VPN maker Proton, said Europe should “step up” and “be aggressive” to counter U.S. Big Tech firms’ tight grip on many important technologies, such as web browsing, cloud computing, smartphones — and now artificial intelligence.
- Thomas Plantenga, CEO of Lithuania-based used clothing app Vinted, urged Europe to take the “right choices” to ensure it doesn’t get “left behind.”
Don’t get me wrong, everybody should be trying to manufacture some microchips inside their own borders - access to microchips is a national security concern for every country.
Any actions taken to promote domestic industry over foreign is protectionism, by definition. If a government encourages the growth of domestic producers via tax incentives, grants, tariffs, etc (anything that adjusts the balance really) that is literally protectionism.
@NaibofTabr@infosec.pub No, investing your money into your own hardware and software isn’t protectionism. That’s obviously the right thing to do, even more so with regard to the current geopolitical landscape.
Okay, you say anything that promotes securing domestic industries is protectionism. Fine.
But then you say protectionism is bad across the board but don’t give any reason.
At least you need to give some arguments why protectionism that is constituted of securing critical infrastructure, providing safe® access to technology, developing independent, decentralised and open technology, etc would be worse than keeping sucking on the tits of US megacorps.
Why is the dependence on US tech corps different than the dependence on russian gas in the past (which I hope we can agree was bad)?
I work for a UK based company in the US. We also have scientists from all over the world working together. I think everyone working together for common goals is the ideal situation. Communication with people across the globe is one of the things that rocketed humankind forward in learning and technology. We don’t have pockets of people making the same mistakes and wasting the same time and resources trying to come up with all the new ideas; we get to collaborate. If we start hoarding knowledge and tech, we kick ourselves back to a worse point than where we are now.
I was watching a video this morning talking about China’s advancements in space exploration. It was talking about China offering to work with other countries, including the US, but there was a bill passed (2011?) that forbid space work with China without congressional approval. That seems like something that will hurt the US space program. The creation of the bill was due to the thought that China was doing mainly “taking” from the US and not giving back, which I don’t know enough to speak on, but now that China is in a position to “give,” we’ve already pulled back our hand and tied it. We can’t learn from China, and they can’t learn from us, at least by legal/above the table means.
It’s frustrating to see knowledge get locked away. I get there are valid and logical reasons to do it sometimes, but it is still sad to see. Most people here seem to be for or at least supportive of free information in almost every form, but then in situations like this, we fall back to nationalism for some reason or another.
It is good for countries to provide for themselves and their people, but when it starts to hinder another group is when we enter moral grey zones. When does it go from looking out for one’s own interest to hurting another group? Everyone will have a different answer to that, but I hope most individuals would prefer to collaborate and work things out with each other. I think that is common among individuals. Most of us are probably annoying at about half the things our countries are doing at any moment, and potentially cutting ourselves off from equally dissatisfied people that could help us from other places feels like a net loss for all parties.
First of all, your comment displays an admirable ideal. Yes, knowledge should benefit all of humankind, and I too yearn the day this ideal will be true. However, exchanging knowledge and technology with everybody right now would be just as naive. China is not our friend, not even just another country. It is a systematic enemy and an oppressive, authoritarian regime and exchanging knowledge and technology, even trading with it enriches China, enables its methods and sends a message of tolerance towards authoritarianism that should not be sent. Everyone engaging with China in such fashion makes themselves accomplice.
Secondly, you completely missed the topic. I am not talking about exchanging knowledge, I am saying we shouldn’t rely on untrustworthy partners. Trump is a senile, unstable and unpredictable corporate boss, not a politician. And his United States completely under control of his Republican Party is cannot be trusted. Hence, Europe needs to bit their shit together and become the geopolitical power it needs to and can be, or it will go down and be a mere pawn to China.
My miss was somewhat intentional, as I felt you both had some validity to your arguments, and I had wanted to acknowledge you both without looking like I was here to take one side or another, more to try to touch on the similarities you both had to your positions.
Not bringing production of things back to Europe in the current climate I agree would be foolish. Much like with the US trying to secure a future for chip production in our country due to our relations with China be touchy. In that way, it is a positive thing as you say. But it also brings a loss in relations with who we’re guarding ourselves against. I’d rather the US improve Chinese relations than put up new walls, and I’m sure at least to an extent, you’d like your country to be able to count on the US more than you can right now. If we succeed in securing domestic production for our respective countries, I still feel we’re losing something important, and I think that is what the other commenter was trying to get at, but not doing a great job of putting it into words.
I’m also aware I’m on an EU instance, and especially lately, I know some are tired of hearing opinions from Americans even if we don’t support what our pending government wants to do, so I try to tread lightly as possible now while still sharing my thoughts. I want to be respectful and not come off as a know-it-all. There have been so many times America has relied on Europe, I hate to see things getting to the point they’re at. While I can’t make up for what my government has done or will do, I still want to make and hold onto bonds between us where I can.
Then your comment was just bad at conveying that. Maybe next time try and point out what arguments you find valid and why.
I don’t want any democracy under the rule of law legitimize authoritarian and injust regimes by trading them. I don’t want to see metaphorical walls either, I’m German and we do have a history with walls (metaphorical and literal ones) after all. But I want to see governments being consequential in fighting for democracy and justice globally. We attempted ”Let’s just trade and exchange knowledge and they’ll see how much better our system is“ twice before with both Russia and China. How did it work out so far?
No. I don’t want to depend on anyone anymore. I want equal partnerships instead of this weird corporate colonialism.
And what would that be? What exactly would we lose?
I don’t care where you’re from. Neither do I care about labels. I care about arguments, positions, ideas and proposals. Specific, tangible things that can be discussed.
I guess I’m at a loss for how to discuss a charged topic here right now. Since the election, I seem to get a harsh reception no matter my approach. I’ve had people get just as frustrated at me for doing what you say I should do. I don’t feel it’s very productive getting annoyed at someone trying to talk, as it is kinda the purpose of social media, but everyone can do what they feel the need to do.