Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google EU

Google CEO Apologises for Document, EU's Breton Warns Internet is Not Wild West (reuters.com) 48

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has apologised to Europe's industry chief Thierry Breton over a leaked internal document proposing ways to counter the EU's tough new rules for technology companies. From a report: Pichai and Breton exchanged views in a video-conference call late on Thursday, the third this year, according to a statement from the European Commission. "The Internet cannot remain a 'Wild West': we need clear and transparent rules, a predictable environment and balanced rights and obligations," Breton told Pichai. The call came after a Google internal document outlined a 60-day strategy to counter the European Union's push for the new rules by getting U.S. allies to push back against Breton. The call was initiated by Google before the document was leaked. Breton brought up the leaked document and showed it to Pichai during the call and said that there was no need to use old century tactics and to play one unit at the Commission against another, a person familiar with the call said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google CEO Apologises for Document, EU's Breton Warns Internet is Not Wild West More

Google CEO Apologises for Document, EU's Breton Warns Internet is Not Wild West

Comments Filter:
  • I challenge Breton to a showdown at sundown.
  • Or do they only support neutrality in certain advantageous circumstances?
  • A bazic tenet of editing iz that the text needz to be zpelled correctly in language it iz being written in. "Apologise" iz not a valid word in American.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nagora ( 177841 )

      A bazic tenet of editing iz that the text needz to be zpelled correctly in language it iz being written in. "Apologise" iz not a valid word in American.

      -ise is normal American spelling and has been for a very long time. -ize is the English form and dates back to the 1500's, although -ise is common now too because of the American influence coming back over the Atlantic.

      Ironically, -ize seems to have crept into American English under the influence of people who like to make up rules from nowhere - the sort of people who complain about split infinitives, which are in fact perfectly allowable in English because it's not Latin - and then spout on about it in o

      • While "apologize" is present in the 1913 edition of Webster's dictionary, "apologise" is not. This strongly leads us that the former is more typical in formal writing of 20th century American English.

        My assumption is that origins of the -ize on "apologize" belongs to one of the American spelling reforms. This would explain the difference when compared to Commonwealth English.

        Style guides used for Universities, news papers, and publishers have requirements for a reference dictionary. In American business and

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          Apologize is the original, apologise evolved in British English later on. Even the OED uses Apologize as the primary entry for the word, noting apologise as the British spelling. Brits dropped -ize starting in the mid 18th century when they started to standardize the language. Prior to that they used a mix of the two depending on the word. Many of the American words that differ from their British counterparts are actually the way the British spelled them prior to this as well. The new spellings never made i

  • he Internet cannot remain a 'Wild West': The only people that favors is those who want to make more money at the expense of others.
    Making money is good, but you should not be able to use the law to ensure you ability to optimize prophets. Of course that is all too common now-a-days.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DeanonymizedCoward ( 7230266 )

      Isn't Western-style capitalism pretty much a two-variable optimization problem for 'Profits' vs. 'Risk of Going to Prison?' And they say no one uses Calculus!

      More to the point, the Cuban people have done a pretty good job of building an ad-hoc internet [wired.com] to get around the limitations imposed upon them, and they have the sort of tacit approval of their government doing it, so there's that...

    • For anyone but the one "making" the money.
      Hint: You're not the one. I know the US mindset is to make everybody believe he is, and if he isn't it was his own fault and he failed, but by definition, it is impossible for the majority to be that one.

      And even worse, if that money is made without actually giving more back. Aka if it is profit. As opposed to earnings.
      Then it is literally equivalent to stealing from others.

      I'd argue being stolen from is not something you'd consider good, right?
      Maybe you don't even

  • It was so much more fun when it was. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Revek ( 133289 ) on Friday November 13, 2020 @10:33AM (#60719436)
    Lets face it for those of us who were on the internet back when it was basically a educational network miss the days of people being generally competent in its use. These days every dumbass on the planet thinks they are the reason the internet exists. Sure its brought us lol cats and memes for every occasion but I still miss the simplicity of how if you didn't like someone you just flooded them off the net until their campus sysadmin locked their login. It really was akin to the wild west and I miss it.

    • Flooding is an inherently antisocial activity which is harmful to others besides the target, and people who engage in it deserve to have their internet access throttled to dialup levels.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 )

        Fuck off, you creep. If you can't handle a confidence test, go sit in your bubble boy safe space bubble and hold on to your house of cards of a soul.

        I'll let you find my other comments to figure out how that relates to this.

        • So to be clear, I should fuck off because you think it is OK to shit on the internet so you can solve a personal problem with one user? That isn't just antisocial, it's sociopathic.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shanen ( 462549 )

            Reviewing the discussion, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. This was a job for an emoticon?

            Oh wait. Slashdot is still back in the era of dial-up access. No fancy emoji for you Slashdotters!

            Right now I'm reading a Slovakian book about the history of emoji. The Story of Emoji by Gavan Lucas.

    • Obligatory Jargon File entry: http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm... [catb.org]

  • "Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has apologised..."

    As I said yesterday [slashdot.org], maybe Alphabet (Google) needs a new CEO.

    This Slashdot story from yesterday mentioned that caring from Google that was common years ago: RIP Google Music, One of the Company's Last Examples of Generosity [slashdot.org]

    My experience is that Larry Page and Sergey Brin were wonderful.

    Now, for example, Google searches have problems that need fixing.

  • The fact is...it is.

    Yes, Mr EU superstate, you get to control (to the extent that your democratic populace allows, right?) the internets that connect into your world, but YOU DON'T GET TO DICTATE HOW THE INTERNET OPERATES.

    To be be clear, neither ultimately does the US, either, although being the creator of it, the US still has a disproportional amount of control over the mechanisms.

    What I see here is a state getting surly because someone dared suggest there's a limit to their power and YES, Thierry Breton,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swilver ( 617741 )

      I know this may come to a shock to you, but in countries that are not the US, the "state" actually sometimes acts in the best interests of the people that voted for it. Unlike mega-corps, who will destroy the environment, use slave labor and sell your data if it means making an extra buck for their shareholders, going as far as to calculate how much the backlash would cost vs the benefits such actions bring.

      • Sure they do, and I'm glad for those people.
        I don't think I need to bring up the examples where OTHER democratic states, when given tremendous centralized power to help their people, did things like venture out into wars of conquest or industrialized genocide that cost the lives of millions.

        "Fair risk" you'd say?

  • And they were much more fun and people have been much nicer too.

    I much prefer a world where I can call somebody an asshole and he can call me a dick and we are confident enough to know we love each other, to a world where everybody vomits rainbows in trembling snowflake fear, and grinds an axe behind their back for when you turn yours. Creepy psychopaths do the latter. It is cowardly and shameful.

    It's like Puritans all over again. Except with No Power.

    If I ever make a online forum or site like Slashdot agai

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mad7777 ( 946676 )
      Yep. The internet used to be fun, and Google used to be cool. Now, they're just bullies like everyone else.

      Keep in mind, however, that the internet used to consist of university professors, and, later, students. I.e., smart people. It was when the floodgates opened to the normies, back in the late 90s, that shit started getting dumb.

  • That that they expect? That Google would give up, shut down, and refund the assets to the shareholders? Simply exit the EU market entirely? Of COURSE Google was going to plan out a defense when they came under attack. Anyone surprised by that had to have failed all of their psych and business classes so hard, they should probably not have been allowed to graduate or work in the first place.

  • To be fair, Bretons are confusing to everyone else too: https://youtu.be/_WTljGBWKOg [youtu.be]
    (Damn, we need English subtitles!)

  • has the power to NOT use Google services. You can install "Google Analytics Optout" (do an Internet search ironically) into your browser to stop Google from using you as a money tool. That's the first step. Stop using google for search (DuckDuckGo is really good) and stop using Gmail (which I admit was the hardest to do). If you don't like Google then let them know by not using their machine.
  • The internet isn't guns and blood, it's information and ideas. It should be completely free. The realm of guns and blood is already controlled, as it should be. The fears and actual dangers of the Wild West are already solved.... You can walk through Arizona without worrying about getting shot. But if you have a weak idea, and someone attacks your idea, then that is a good thing. Humanity benefits when ideas are free
  • Rules? Yes. Going too far in that direction to the point where using it means you're lockstepped, so tightly regulated and regimented that you can't do anything different from anyone else? Stifles innovation, stifles free speech and free expression, turns it into just another verison of Cable TV that happens to be two-way. If that's what they want (and there's plenty of signs of that) then they'll find plenty of people in the know jumping ship.

  • Pichai apologised for the way the document came out, which he said he had not seen or sanctioned

    https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]

    "not seen or sanctioned" sounds like a non-denial denial to me.

  • Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Friday November 13, 2020 @02:59PM (#60720660)
    "we're sorry we got caught, we'll be more careful next time"

  • Wtf (Score:3)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Friday November 13, 2020 @03:46PM (#60720848) Journal

    When government fears the people, there is liberty.

    When the people fear government, there is tyrrany.

    Here, the free people are afraid of government, and apologizing for planning on every legal means of getting around the law, which itself is legal in such a manner, by definition. And also apologizing for rhetoric against politicians in power?

    Whether the law is good policy is irrelevant.

    • This is also evidence of regulation by raised eyebrow. You don't want to piss off those in power lest theu get angry and come down harder on you for the temerity of criticising them.

      This also isn't supposed to happen.

    • Please don't assume companies represent the people in your argument.

      In this case, I feel the EU commision is protecting me as a EU citizen against huge companies doing whatever they feel they can do, with my digital journey and personal data. Just like the GDPR is actually doing a good thing, for us -the people and individual human beings.

      In addition, your view that everything which is not explicitly prohibited is legal, does not entail more freedom. It entails companies abusing us the people, just like whe

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users know your home telephone number.

Close