Top
Best
New

Posted by l-one-lone 11 hours ago

How Europe is killing makers and micro-entrepreneurs(lectronz.com)
1018 points | 642 commentspage 4
jcfrei 10 hours ago|
These blog posts often allude that the EU regulatory bodies are just slightly incompetent or short-sighted and these fragmented national models happen by accident. But unfortunately that's not the case: The EU pretends to be a single-market and almost mantra-like the EU officials keep repeating it. But the fact of the matter is that there is neither a single market nor is the European public ready for one. If there was a true single market (like the US has one) - then this would very quickly lead to massive changes in the labour market. Imagine all the Romanian construction companies suddenly building office buildings in Madrid. Or countless Polish architects suddenly undercutting the much more expensive architects in Milano. Whether they know it or not, Europeans would like to have all the benefits of a single market (mostly more competitive pricing) without any of the downsides (massive labour shifts) - but that option doesn't exist. So what they do is harmonize regulation for a few big corporations, while all the smaller companies (and their employees) still get to keep their national moats.
nonethewiser 7 hours ago|
>The EU pretends to be a single-market and almost mantra-like the EU officials keep repeating it. But the fact of the matter is that there is neither a single market nor is the European public ready for one.

There are several comments suggesting the EU did everything right and member states tanked it but this just feels like the EU operating as intended. The EU is comprised of sovereign nations. This is a normal outcome of what is essentially a P2P network. The central authority is illusory because the EU is not sovereign.

Freak_NL 6 hours ago||
No idea if this applies to the whole of the EU, but the government designated critters responsible for this in the Netherlands mention that business that ship less than 50 tons of packaging material, and don't use single-use plastics are exempt.

https://www.verpact.nl/nl/nieuw-bij-verpakkings-epr-zo-regel...

0x_rs 11 hours ago||
It's typical eco-suicide: give eurocrats more power and fake work to do, pretend most recycling regulations aren't scams, and practically destroy trade between countries in the union because you need one representative in every single country you want to sell anything in. As if adding a 5 (soon to become 7€) fee (plus tax) for every line of item (not package) outside the union wasn't enough. It is also quite obvious both must've been heavily lobbied by major retail groups through EuroCommerce.

Feedback for this utterly deranged regulation can be seen below, over 5k entries by many businesses in EU:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...

lucasRW 10 hours ago|
And don't forget to fill in all the administrative paperwork on how your business addresses climate change; LGBTQIA+ issues; men/women parity; etc !
A_D_E_P_T 5 hours ago||
Fortunately, generating this sort of annoying boilerplate is what LLMs were born to handle.
zarzavat 11 hours ago||
It is possible to ignore laws if it's too much bother to comply with them... it's hard to imagine the authorities will come after someone for mailing out 10 anti-static bags.
caseysoftware 11 hours ago||
That's a very American mindset. I've worked across both the US and EU at a variety of companies with customers, partners, etc and it's a clear pattern:

- Americans are usually willing to skirt the rules and figure it out later. This comes with risk but is ideal when you're early stage, low stakes, and you couldn't follow the rules anyway.

- Europeans absolutely want to do it by the book and will be shocked if you suggest otherwise. Being process oriented is great for high stakes industries where lives and safety are on the line but destroys startups, likely slowing or even killing innovation.

There is no floor to the level of "petty" that can happen here: the UK - granted, not the EU - goes after individuals who don't pay their TV license and determine the who by triangulating unlicensed TVs via radio trucks and inspectors looking in your windows.

pjc50 10 hours ago|||
The TV license is silly but the detector van situation is bogus, at least in the present day; really they just blanket mail demand letters to every address in the database on the assumption that everyone watches TV.

> Europeans absolutely want to do it by the book

Again on HN, I don't think conflating Europe and all Europeans into a uniform culture works. This might be true of Germany but as you get further from Berlin it is .. less so.

(Famous story from the Greek debt crisis of using satellite photos to find swimming pools and therefore people who were probably underpaying income tax, which was at such poor compliance levels the state was struggling)

veeti 8 hours ago|||
There's a famous website about it, I've been following since 2008: https://www.bbctvlicence.com/
caseysoftware 9 hours ago|||
Yes, it appears the "detector vans" are an urban legend/propoganda.

Even more fun, in the lead up to Greece joining the EU, they had to get their government pay under control so they were given monthly caps on what they could pay people. No problem, they created a 13th month.

* As detailed in Michael Lewis' Boomerang: https://amzn.to/4cXJnjE - He's the same guy who wrote The Big Short and Moneyball

kakoni 10 hours ago||||
Perhaps one explanation is personal bankruptcy? At least in Scandinavia/Finland this is an unknown concept. You mess up your business (Ireland has EPR fines upto 500ke) and end up paying company loans for the rest of your life.
fluoridation 10 hours ago||
Do they not have LLCs?
kakoni 10 hours ago||
Of course, but when getting bank loan(for the llc) to get started you have to give personal collateral.
fluoridation 9 hours ago||
I don't think any bank will give you such a huge personal loan that you could end up in debt for your whole life, since they typically want the loan repaid. The only way I can imagine that happening is if you're a sole proprietor and you get sued or fined. I can't think of another way to get exposed to that much liability.
kakoni 8 hours ago||
100ke might be enough. Once the debt is in enforcement (ulosotto in Finnish), interest can keep accruing at roughly 10%. If your earnings are low, you can pay for years without reducing the principal at all.
fluoridation 6 hours ago||
What are you doing taking on that kind of risk and starting ventures if your earnings are low? I'm sorry, but if you're a delivery boy living from paycheck to paycheck, you should be trying to get an education, not start a business. That's true in Finland and in the US.
veeti 5 hours ago||
I don't think you understand Finland at all ;-) Even the delivery boy has a master's degree, that's not the issue.
fluoridation 4 hours ago||
Should get a second one, then, if that's the meta.
maeln 10 hours ago||||
I don't really have this experience. A lot of business I have worked with followed the "let's just do it and figure out the risk later" approach. In highly regulated environment it was different, but then looking for ways to squirt around the rules was the game. See for example the CumCum (don't blame me, it was called like that) tax-evasion scheme put in place by french banks.
Lumaestro 10 hours ago||||
Depends on what Europe you mean. Europe can be quite different depending on where you are. I wouldn't say northern Europe wants to do it by the book all the time like the Germans.

Quite common to view Europe as all the same, but Europe varies much more than what US does.

dwedge 9 hours ago||||
Most people are under the impression that those triangulating trucks can't detect anything and they're just an obvious looking enforcement truck used as a scare tactic, is that not the case?
Always42 10 hours ago||||
Do regular tv’s transmit?
caseysoftware 10 hours ago||
The old CRTs do, yes. Not so much with LCDs.

But unfortunately, I may be wrong and bought into an urban legend/bit of propoganda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...

ranger_danger 11 hours ago|||
I find this hard to discuss among others as it often results in heated discussions, but in my experience, Europeans have a completely different understanding of what is considered "rude" so much that I struggle to work with a vast majority of them.

That's not to say that there aren't extremely nice people all other Europe... there are. But I'm still caught off guard when hearing them say some things nonchalantly that would get them fired in the US.

scns 10 hours ago|||
> But I'm still caught off guard when hearing them say some things nonchalantly that would get them fired in the US.

I'm intruiged, can you give an example?

caseysoftware 10 hours ago|||
Not sure if it's a pattern but when I interviewed with an EU company recently, they explicitly asked if I was married and if I had kids. They explained it as they had a "European mindset towards weekends and holidays" and they expected me to NOT be online.

I was fine with the mindset but never expected to get those questions in an interview, as it'd be illegal in the States.

mrguyorama 7 hours ago||
It had to be made illegal to ask in the states, because so many employers used that information in an adversarial way.

In places that don't have such a history, there's no reason for it to be taboo.

HeyLaughingBoy 5 hours ago||
To be clear: the question isn't illegal. What is illegal is using it to discriminate against a protected class, so as a result, no interviewer with half a brain will ask those questions.
ranger_danger 3 hours ago|||
"you should lose weight"

Whenever I call out things like this to European friends they just think I am being an overly-sensitive American. But saying that to a colleague can absolutely get you fired in the US.

dragochat 10 hours ago|||
wtf are u talking about? some examples would be in order...
FinnLobsien 11 hours ago|||
The problem is that even this has a chilling effect on innovation:

1.It will dissuade some people from starting in the first place because it's one more hurdle. Even if in practice people don't comply, the existence of that complexity will dissuade some people.

2.Even if nobody is being prosecuted for mailing 10 anti-static bags, what is the number at which you do comply? And once you do, will you be held accountable for everything that came before?

lukan 11 hours ago|||
Likely not, but would you want the extra risk and the stress involved, that maybe one day you will find a expensive letter in your box?
billyp-rva 11 hours ago||
It depends on how expensive that letter is.
matt-p 11 hours ago|||
Maybe it's super convenient for you in the moment, but the aggregate effect is pretty bad. If everyone just ignores laws because they're too much hassle and they don't expect to get caught, enforcement becomes incredibly difficult. You end up with loads of laws that technically exist but are only selectively enforced, which is a pretty serious problem.
throw-the-towel 10 hours ago||
How would you then have backpressure against bad laws?
matt-p 10 hours ago||
Courts, lobbying (writing to your MP), campaigning, demonstrations, elections ideally. I know that non-compliance is the path of least resistance, it's just got really bad consequences.
throw-the-towel 10 hours ago||
But then you hit the same problem LLM slop exploits: the cost of refuting bullshit becomes way higher than the cost of generating it.
anonzzzies 10 hours ago|||
Yeah, I always ignore them, first in my own country (NL) and after that in EU. Even if they fine (which they don't for small companies/persons), they will not spend money/efforts to cash the fine anyway, especially across borders. I had a few useless fines in the 35 years of my company, never will pay them.
dmix 11 hours ago|||
Great way for larger companies to knock you their smaller competitors by hiring a firm to vet they follow the rules
bluGill 11 hours ago|||
You risk that someone wants to make an example of you. You might run for mayor and your past is dig up and exaggerated
pelagicAustral 11 hours ago|||
Don't hold your breath.
AndroTux 11 hours ago|||
Sounds like a great opportunity for folks to sue you for exactly that. Same with the imprint requirement in Germany. There are people out there looking for small businesses without an imprint to extract some money from them.
9dev 11 hours ago||
As they should. As a customer, I want to be able to hold a business accountable, and the minimum requirement for that is being able to identify the legal person responsible for that business.
AndroTux 10 hours ago||
Yes, I too want the smallest Twitch streamer to have to put their exact home address publicly on the internet so they have no protection from weirdos and stalkers. If a post box would suffice, sure, I'd be down. But that's explicitly not allowed.

But regardless, kinda OT. I was just trying to make a point that ignoring a law isn't without consequences.

raverbashing 11 hours ago||
Yeah I'm betting on that as well

In the end, it's mail being sent.

fidotron 9 hours ago||
You really have to wonder what Xi Jinpeng thinks of all this.

The extent to which China can appear to do nothing while the west kills itself is just unbelievable. How could you possibly respect people that can't get out of their own way so repeatedly?

niceguy1827 9 hours ago|
I think it popped up maybe a year or two ago on youtube/reddit but there was this meme that goes: "China: do nothing, profit".
Kudos 10 hours ago||
Anti-EU regulation sentiment really seems to have an uptick in line with widespread availability of LLMs.

The EU isn't perfect, but the catastrophising I read feels mostly like astro-turfing attempts at destabilisation.

It's probably more easily noticed from inside the EU.

Argonaut998 9 hours ago||
I agree. I say this as a eurosceptic myself. HN and Twitter make it seem like the EU is borderline third world that is moments away from collapse.

Germany is the third largest economy in the world. The EU as a bloc is the second largest economy in the world.

While lagging considerably behind the US and China in services, it still is among the leaders in energy and manufacturing.

It’s in decline, but it’s really not anything that can’t be fixed.

Certainly not anywhere HN/Twitter like to make it out to be.

The EU is facing a two-front information war. A strong EU doesn’t benefit the US, Russia or China. Having said that, a lot of US criticisms that are propagandised against the EU are mostly fair criticisms, the EU makes it easy for its adversaries to propagandise low hanging fruit (such as the bureaucracy on display here)

NooneAtAll3 8 hours ago|||
Tech is an even field and had it been the primary cause, pro-regulation voices would be as prominent as anti-regulation ones

What really is happening is budget constraint - european 3-letter agencies don't get as much funding as US/UK ones and, due to failed geopolitic strategies, are spread over all sorts of vectors of internal sentiment defence - migrants, Turkey, ARTOS separation, etc

it isn't noticeable due to all the accumulated wealth, but european economies are being bled dry, but pretty much all geopolitical players. They stopped balancing between multiple centers of power - and now painfully pay the price of misaligned dependence.

benoau 9 hours ago|||
> feels mostly like astro-turfing attempts at destabilisation

Well it is certainly the perfect conditions for it, the EU is surrounded by friends and enemies alike who openly seek to break it up and the biggest companies in the world are doing everything they can to defy and undermine regulation efforts.

21asdffdsa12 10 hours ago|||
Stability - on the defense, is like goal-keeping in soccer. You can protect the goal 99.99% and still loose. And therein lies the crux! The EU does not attack, it seems to think that waiting for the old world to return is enough - basically a extended hibernation to another episode of good times.

But maybe this is it. Maybe good times, made via surplus bribery by innovation and innovators will not come around for a while. So what do you call a strategy that relies on something hopefully to come, that you are unable to produce or even articulate you need.

arjie 9 hours ago|||
Everyone likes to think “it’s the bots” or whatever but GDPR came before LLMs and the reaction to that was the same. I think you’re probably seeing just the effect of a bunch of Americans on an American site in awe at the legal barriers in place in the EU.
Kudos 7 hours ago||
Troll farms existed before GDPR. What I'm talking about is the supercharged disinformation capacity LLMs brought to them.
myaccountonhn 9 hours ago|||
Yeah any thread on the EU is full with that on HN.
shimman 8 hours ago||
They want the lifestyle of Europe but do not want the rich to pay more taxes to support it.
throw-the-towel 5 hours ago||
But don't Switzerland or the UK have similarly comfortable lifestyles with less absurd taxation?
jvwww 1 hour ago|||
UK taxation is absolutely absurd. Kills the ambitious. Just look at what happens between 100-125k, both from the perspective of tax and loss in benefits for parents.
Kudos 4 hours ago|||
That's a leading framing, but comparing an individual country and a 27 member trading bloc in that way makes no sense even if it wasn't.
veeti 5 hours ago|||
Somehow there is always an endless supply of coincidence theorists ready to hand wave away all criticisms of EU shooting itself in the foot. The TFA is from a seemingly legitimate Greek business with a 5+ track record of selling and publishing electronics content online. They obviously work with many others in the space and have come up with this plea for some reason.

And you are calling this astroturfing LLM based on what? It's really no different from calling tariffs so much winning and laughing at seething liberals.

zuzululu 9 hours ago|||
No, there was already a steady complaints against Anti-EU regulation from within Europe around the time Eurozone debt crisis introduced sweeping changes that ultimately centralized regulatory enforcement over sovereign interests of EU member states. I think anybody from Europe would know this is the focal point when anti-EU sentiments really ticked up.

There really isn't much of astro-turfing in non-EU parts of the world that would make little sense, your narrative might make more sense if there were any actual evidence or credibility behind the claims that non-EU states are engaged in anti-EU discourse that doesn't apply to them.

The complaints against EU is a lagging effect and what you see today is cumulative, one that all federated organization eventually face. LLMs have little to do with it and its just more visible as it is quite literally in global discourse

Kudos 7 hours ago||
> your narrative might make more sense if there were any actual evidence or credibility behind the claims that non-EU states are engaged in anti-EU discourse

The uptick I'm talking about is in the last 2 years.

At least one Israeli Minister has bragged about them doing it.

I don't think you need specific evidence of Russia doing it, it's widely believed to be happening by security professionals. They famously had troll farms of people employed to spread disinformation and that can only have been accelerated by LLMs.

zuzululu 2 hours ago||
Again the trope Russia did it is as ridiculous as Trump claiming China rigged US elections. There's simply no real hard evidence that can be examined without partisan bias.

I don't doubt the existence of troll farms either its just that the idea that you can influence online discourse in the manner claimed by both Democrats and Republicans and beyond in a left vs right rivalry is greatly exaggerated and carry their biases.

At the end of the day, you really can't change whatever beliefs that the crowd has had for ages. You can't astroturf Palestinians into changing their view against Israelis and you can't astroturf Israelis into changing their position towards Palestinians.

cbeach 9 hours ago|||
There's no "catastrophising" here. This is simply an article that rationally explains why the latest EU regulation is well meaning but poorly implemented.

It just so happens that the same is true for a lot of EU technical regulation.

At what point are we allowed to say "the EU is failing to regulate its members effectively"?

Or are we not allowed to say that because it would create some kind of catastrophe where the EU Commission loses its power over the EU27 and Russia invades (or somesuch catastrophising...?)

throwawayffffas 8 hours ago|||
While I generally agree, the specific regulation case seems to be particularly egregious, the playbook for the regulation already existed through the VAT system. They deliberately chose to add to the single markets fragmentation. By adding additional bureaucratic loops to enter each individual market.
ajjahs 8 hours ago||
[dead]
unfamiliar 9 hours ago||
What do LLMs have to do with it?
Kudos 7 hours ago||
What do automated content generators have to do with astro-turfing?
planb 6 hours ago||
EU regulation is basically broken beyond repair. And I used to be the biggest proponent of it. When everyone was being angry that they are taking away light bulbs this was a kick starter for LED lighting and I guess Signify (formerly Philips lighting) and Osram wouldn’t exist today if they hadn’t been forced to invest into that field of technology.

Unfortunately the EU does not at all understand how the internet works, maybe even how the global economy works today. Their goals are very reasonable and I fully support them, but the legislation around it (DMA, AI Act, GDPR, this new packaging stuff, don’t get me started with whatever everyone calls the cookie law) is just out of touch with how the modern world works. Again, I don’t think this is out of bad intention (not even to give an advantage to EU companies, but that is up to discussion) but mostly just out of a complete lack of understanding of what would really benefit the common EU citizen. The just seem to listen to activist groups and lobbyists aiming for regulatory capture and when trying to find a compromise in between they chose the worst of both worlds.

jansan 5 hours ago|
I am pretty sure the reason for the ban lightbulbs was to push sales of fluorescent lamps before LEDs would finally take over. It came just when LED lamps were still too expensive to replace the light bulbs, so people were pushed into those crappy fluorescent lamps, only to have them replaced a few years later by the much better LEDs.
anigbrowl 4 hours ago||
A simpler solution (which the author doesn't seem to consider) is just putting hte cost on the packaging vendors, who will of course pass it on to their customers. So the price of a padded bag or whatever will rise perhaps 20 cents, but the person mailing goods from their micro-storefront doesn't have to worry about that.
rrmdp 3 hours ago||
This is really sad to read :(

So many entrepreneurs (who can because software businesses) are leaving EU

leros 11 hours ago|
Laws like this really need to only be enforced for companies of certain sizes.
mortarion 9 hours ago||
In the EU some companies simply cannot grow because of laws like that. They might want to grow, but can't because of laws that says if your company has more than X employees you suddenly have to deal with a bunch of extra bureaucracy and reporting requirements. These companies purposely stay small, and basically has stopped hiring, even if they could use more manpower.
brohee 10 hours ago|||
This has its own issues. Big bad actors can now split their activities between more smaller companies to avoid some regulation. I've seen it happening.
leros 10 hours ago|||
That's the tradeoff for allowing smaller companies flexibility to thrive without being swamped in regulations and fees.
lukasbm 10 hours ago|||
that's fair game though. Either way they waste money on administrative overhead, which seems to be the goal of this whole procedure
dmix 11 hours ago|||
That would just add tons of extra paperwork and a much larger administrative system to vet all the sizes of companies. IRL they will probably not even be enforcing this widely (like GDPR) but the costs will still be imposed on any business wanting to sell in Europe.
SV_BubbleTime 11 hours ago||
Selective enforcement is a tyranny generator.

How about the law doesn’t exist if it doesn’t actually make sense?

some_random 11 hours ago|||
Selective enforcement is just tyranny, but what I think they were getting at is a minimum size enshrined in law. I don't think it's a great idea, really highlights how arbitrary this all is and presents a risk of advantaging the worst actors more than real makers, but it's a valid way forward.
leros 10 hours ago||
Laws like this are a good idea but its too burdensome for small companies so it cripples innovations and small businesses. Only applying it to larger companies let's it apply to only the companies who have the largest impact and also can afford compliance, while not stifling small businesses. Not perfect but I think it's a decent tradeoff.
mmmpetrichor 8 hours ago||||
there are many federal laws in the US (and im sure other countries) that only apply when your company reaches a certain size. This is the most obvious way to balance regulatory burden on new companies while still enforcing regulations on large companies that have enough resources to comply.
bluGill 10 hours ago|||
The law makes sense, the details where things don't make sense
More comments...