I don't know, I see the super state that the EU wants to become as scary as the super tech company people fear in Google. Also, making it hard to change browsers is not the same as prohibiting changing browsers. Some things are hard to change in Linux too, but I am sure for different reasons that are the result of how they pile on top of each other. The EU could use a cash infusion though given its current economic state.
For starters, this fine isn’t about browsers, it’s about AdSense. Apart from that, we can discuss the pros and cons of multinational treaty cooperations until we’re blue in the face but at the very least the EU in principle follows a democratic postulate, meaning that its citizens have decision power. Google is fundamentally unaccountable to anybody but its largest shareholders. If you fear democratically steered treaty unions more than unaccountable multinational mega-corporations, you’re not paying attention.
I am not as optimistic on the EU as you are. Reading 1984, before 1984, and growing up during the Cold War, definitely has shaped my thoughts on some of this, especially a single state or one-world government. A pan-European state, with one flag, it's own anthem, and the desire for a single army doesn't pass my sniff test of just being a multinational treaty cooperation, or a "democratically steered treaty union" as you write above. It points toward a bigger thing in action of that which some of its proponents oppose in their ideals. Trotsky pushed for a communist, soviet united states of Europe in 1923.
As far as AdSense goes, after reading the article a second time, I am not convinced of it being a forced monopoly (Apple iPhones and other options), and I see the fine as protectionist and not under antitrust violation. I see the same protectionism here in the US too.
I gave up an iPhone for an Android phone, because I think it gives me more choice to install what I want, to hack away at it, in a way that feels more free to me than when I had an iPhone (back in 2016, maybe it has changed?).
> Trotsky pushed for a communist, soviet united states of Europe in 1923.
Right, but what does this have to do with anything? The only thing in common is that both have “Europe” in the name (and I’m not even sure that was part of Trotsky’s vision). If a union of states scares you, the USA must be your waking nightmare. If you’ve indeed read 1984 you’ll notice that there are literally no parallels between that scenario and the history of the EEC and EU.
The zeitgeist of 1923 during Trotsky's statement, and the idea of unifying Europe, since 1923 was also the year that Paneuropa was published by Coudenhove-Kalergi. I don't read 1984 as a roadmap, or with literal parallels to the EU, but only as a cautionary tales against large super states. It is not too clear how the world arrives at this scenario in the book. Warring is a distraction to keep the public in line. I have lived in other countries, and the USA is not my waking nightmare, since in older age, I am more moderate in my response to things. I don't like labels, but I am more of a free-market anarchist than a socialist, and I am not someone who sees the formation of super states, no matter how you label them, optimistically. I guess living in the US, I would be part of Oceania, and not Eurasia anyway ;)
You either didn’t understand the point I was making, or you are intentionally ignoring it. So let me be direct: How is the EU structurally more similar to a Trotskyist superstate than to the USA? How do you justify comparing the EU, but not the USA, to the totalitarian, quasi-fascist nightmare from 1984?
Both of your leading assumptions are incorrect: I understand your point, and I am not ignoring it. I didn't bring up the USA, you did, so I didn't bother making your argument for you. My guess was that you assume I am fine with the US, but not the EU. I brought up 1984 and the Cold War as things that shaped my thoughts on the subject of one-world government or super states in general. I brought up Trotsky to show that there were different ideas of a united Europe, not to say its modern incarnation, the EU is a Trotskyist superstate - your words. I am more of a free-market anarchist, so the US and the EU both are not at all my cup of tea, if we're going to idealize or dream. I have nothing to justify per your remark in comparing them. But now, for fun I'll bite on a comparison for you. The US even during the early years was not as defined by so many different languages and regions as Europe was and is, even if you include the English, Dutch, Spanish, and French settlers/explorers/colonizers, and the Native American population. The US is a young nation. The idea of a United States came early on in the country's formation into a Federal Republic. Each European nation, even with shifting borders and leaders over time, remained separate until realtively recently with the formation of the EU. You may choose to invoke Trump as the tip of your spear in this argument about the US, he's an easy target, but there is more than just one populist leader in Europe with AfD in Germany, the Freedom Party in Austria, Macron in France (almost Le Pen), Italy (oh, boy), Hungary, Slovenia and Poland to name a few. People seem to get confused over the electoral college's role in US politics. I am confused on how Juncker got elected, and now Salvini has his sights on the coming May elections. With Brexit and the rise of populism in Europe, I can paint a few nightmares, but I am an optimist.
> Some things are hard to change in Linux too, but I am sure for different reasons that are the result of how they pile on top of each other.
The problem isn't technical debt. It would be a company making billions on something that's "hard to change", and than brush it off as technical debt ;)
