He can store data and run services from any jurisdiction he chooses. The penalties he faces from having to cease operations inside any country (other than the US) is far less than the inconvenience that would be faced by that country.
I don't think so. Jumping through the European loops would be cheaper than the ad revenue it generates IMHO. The EU would probably even compromise, not like Russia did on Google/Amazon did over Telegram. Not to forget that would end in a strong competitor.
Jumping through the European loops would be cheaper than the ad revenue it generates
There is a limit to that, and a significant portion of the lost ad revenue could be regained. They hold the audience, so advertisers will follow to them to other jurisdictions.
I don't think it would result in a competitor. As long as Zuck doesn't get too out of line, the user base is not going to leave his monopoly. The fact that it is a monopoly is what makes it so effective. Users know that so will be reluctant to leave without strong cause.
I wish they would, that would solve some of the problems without any government intervention.
Russia was a different case because that userbase was hungry for a local alternative, and potentially viable competitors already existed.
Europe governments can impact profits, but I don't believe they can do so in a sustainable way that would cause any permanent or serious damage to Facebooks stranglehold, or data collection.
I admit I am deep into speculation at this point, and have done little to no research on the topic.
I still think I'm right though :p
There is a limit to that, and a significant portion of the lost ad revenue could be regained. They hold the audience, so advertisers will follow to them to other jurisdictions.
This isn't only about FB and spammers, it's also about where FB pays taxes and who can access them.
I don't think it would result in a competitor.
Likely not, but if the EU blocks FB there will be a competitor soon and it will be global and offer slightly better privacy.
Russia was a different case because that userbase was hungry for a local alternative, and potentially viable competitors already existed.
I doubt that. They probably just want more control. While they have working alternatives for FB and google search, they don't have anything really comparing to AWS or the google cloud.
Europe governments can impact profits, but I don't believe they can do so in a sustainable way that would cause any permanent or serious damage to Facebooks stranglehold, or data collection.
It's unlikely they'd do that but they could threaten it, for EU people.
I admit I am deep into speculation at this point, and have done little to no research on the topic. I still think I'm right though :p
Me too, no idea what politicians will actually do when confronted with the evil "Internet". But it's usually something where everyone loses.
I've said it before: Zuckerberg is bulletproof to Europe.
He can store data and run services from any jurisdiction he chooses. The penalties he faces from having to cease operations inside any country (other than the US) is far less than the inconvenience that would be faced by that country.
Zuck holds all the cards, except the Eagle.
The sooner UK and Europe realize that they are powerless, the sooner they can get to the real issues.