You complain about GDPR and cookies, but it is eye-opening when I access the internet in Europe. I would say that it is not that Europeans hate software, but rather that they value privacy and hate surveillance capitalism. And that is a lesson they learned from totalitarian experiences in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Soviet dominated Eastern Europe.
The whole popup thing could be eliminated if companies stopped using the advertising networks or if they agreed on a uniform way of setting a personal cookie policy. Instead we have deliberate bad design intended to annoy users and get them to consent to detailed tracking.
As a software professional, I genuinely admire Europe’s legacy—after all, European innovation (CERN and the WWW) gave us the very foundation of the modern internet. I also respect Europe's pioneering focus on privacy and security. I undergo GDPR compliance training twice a year myself and take it very seriously in my daily work.
However, I have to be candid: over-regulation has turned into a form of technological suicide. After falling behind during the Web 2.0 era dominated by Google and Meta, Europe is now at risk of falling even further behind in both AI and EVs. It’s genuinely painful to watch. I’m sure you’d agree that the immense compliance burden has effectively choked off local European startups before they even get off the ground?
I guess the real issue here is how does a society cultivate software-intensive industries while maintaining a strong focus on privacy and data security? As a software professional yourself, where do you think the Europeans go wrong in regulating tech, and how could they do tech regulation better?
That is a fantastic question! I'd need an entire essay to do it justice, LOL!
First, let me dispel a common myth: people often blame Europe's language diversity and fragmented market. I 100% disagree. That profoundly underestimates both the technical capability of software engineers and the language fluency of European users.
The real bottleneck is indeed policy attitude. Software innovation inherently requires tolerance, leeway, and gray areas to experiment. Tax cuts alone won't be enough—overly restrictive upfront regulation is industry suicide; it suffocates the baby in the cradle.
I am not saying privacy doesn't matter. Meta's Cambridge Analytica scandal was terrible, no doubt. But look at the mechanism: American enforcement punishes bad behavior after the fact, acting as a warning signal while leaving room for the industry to grow. Europe, by contrast, tried to write a perfect policy upfront to scare off all "greedy bad actors"—and in doing so, ensured nothing gets built at all.
To give an extreme illustration: China is hardly known for regulatory liberalism, right? Yet years ago, Baidu's CEO made a deeply controversial remark: he suggested that Chinese users were more willing to trade privacy for convenience, which could give Chinese AI a speed advantage by feeding models real-world data. Ethically, that’s highly debatable. But politically, it illustrates a mindset: China put industrial dominance first, forcing restrictive policies to yield to industrial goals.
Constraints can always be tightened later. But if the industry itself is killed, and if the space for innovation is choked off from day one, who is a brilliant framework like GDPR ultimately regulating? Only foreign monopolies.
How can Europe possibly spot the world years of AI development while not having a big software industry of its own and think they would be able to come up with something competitive? They’ll be building data centers to use other people’s AI.
The debt profligacy is worse than you describe and the other observers. Pradhan and Goodhart in their most recent book outline the many policy challenges from an aging population, ,demographic changes and the fact we will have more stubborn inflation as immigration tails off, along with the fact that China will unlikely deflate the world this time around. Perhaps AI will save us but it seems warranted to be skeptical. And central banks may face immense challenges they are not equipped to handle given the political constraints. Maybe a crisis will be needed to get all hands on deck.
Speaking of debt, China is also wrestling with two monumental, interconnected debt traps built up over the last two decades: massive private sector real estate debt and excessive local government off-balance-sheet debt (LGFVs).
The process of deleveraging and digesting these liabilities will likely drag down China's growth engine well past 2030. What makes it particularly precarious is the timing—by the time the worst of this debt overhang is cleared, the full-blown impact of China's rapid demographic aging will hit with full force. It’s a double whammy: a prolonged balance sheet recession followed immediately by a shrinking workforce.
Noah's take on trains is misguided. The glaringly obvious reason we lack modern rail transit is because BigOil&Gas monopolists don't like efficient local commuter and short-distance inter-state rail transportation. They like selling the gasoline and aviation fuel consumed by much-less efficient modes. We have existing right-of-ways that are not being used for commuters or have been abandoned. In Sonoma & Marin Counties we now have modern commuter rail, developed in the past 15 years, that utilized an existing rail right-of-way. Was it cheap? No. Is it successful? Yes.
Regarding the science funding paradigm (#1), I would be thrilled by this in any other administration, but as things stand, anything like this being implemented in the current administration would just represent another tool for OMB to savage existing state capacity. Even the metascience work which should be purely informational can easily be twisted by bad faith actors to steer money away from politically disfavored entities.
I agree with Noah, but am more concerned about the weaponization potential. These are really interesting ideas that should be strongly considered by the next competent administration.
Re: why Indian women wouldn't go out in public more, uh: Maybe because a woman alone in public faces a significant risk of being assaulted, across large swathes of the country?
Reading Noah's roundups is always an intellectual treat!
I can fully validate point #5 regarding China’s dominance in critical mineral refining. China’s industry leaders and policymakers are acutely aware that their core leverage lies in refining rare-earth tech, scale, and supply chain integration—not raw natural endowment. There is a strong consensus domestically that the West won't be able to reverse this processing advantage within at least a ten-year horizon.
Broadly speaking, China is far more sensitive to and serious about the value of physical manufacturing, supply chain scaling, and the accumulation of that "tacit knowledge" Noah mentioned. The West—especially Europe—often makes the fundamental mistake of treating policy and GDPR-like laws as something that can top-down dictate and bind technology, rather than letting technical realities shape policy. It’s putting the cart way before the horse.
You complain about GDPR and cookies, but it is eye-opening when I access the internet in Europe. I would say that it is not that Europeans hate software, but rather that they value privacy and hate surveillance capitalism. And that is a lesson they learned from totalitarian experiences in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Soviet dominated Eastern Europe.
The whole popup thing could be eliminated if companies stopped using the advertising networks or if they agreed on a uniform way of setting a personal cookie policy. Instead we have deliberate bad design intended to annoy users and get them to consent to detailed tracking.
As a software professional, I genuinely admire Europe’s legacy—after all, European innovation (CERN and the WWW) gave us the very foundation of the modern internet. I also respect Europe's pioneering focus on privacy and security. I undergo GDPR compliance training twice a year myself and take it very seriously in my daily work.
However, I have to be candid: over-regulation has turned into a form of technological suicide. After falling behind during the Web 2.0 era dominated by Google and Meta, Europe is now at risk of falling even further behind in both AI and EVs. It’s genuinely painful to watch. I’m sure you’d agree that the immense compliance burden has effectively choked off local European startups before they even get off the ground?
I guess the real issue here is how does a society cultivate software-intensive industries while maintaining a strong focus on privacy and data security? As a software professional yourself, where do you think the Europeans go wrong in regulating tech, and how could they do tech regulation better?
That is a fantastic question! I'd need an entire essay to do it justice, LOL!
First, let me dispel a common myth: people often blame Europe's language diversity and fragmented market. I 100% disagree. That profoundly underestimates both the technical capability of software engineers and the language fluency of European users.
The real bottleneck is indeed policy attitude. Software innovation inherently requires tolerance, leeway, and gray areas to experiment. Tax cuts alone won't be enough—overly restrictive upfront regulation is industry suicide; it suffocates the baby in the cradle.
I am not saying privacy doesn't matter. Meta's Cambridge Analytica scandal was terrible, no doubt. But look at the mechanism: American enforcement punishes bad behavior after the fact, acting as a warning signal while leaving room for the industry to grow. Europe, by contrast, tried to write a perfect policy upfront to scare off all "greedy bad actors"—and in doing so, ensured nothing gets built at all.
To give an extreme illustration: China is hardly known for regulatory liberalism, right? Yet years ago, Baidu's CEO made a deeply controversial remark: he suggested that Chinese users were more willing to trade privacy for convenience, which could give Chinese AI a speed advantage by feeding models real-world data. Ethically, that’s highly debatable. But politically, it illustrates a mindset: China put industrial dominance first, forcing restrictive policies to yield to industrial goals.
Constraints can always be tightened later. But if the industry itself is killed, and if the space for innovation is choked off from day one, who is a brilliant framework like GDPR ultimately regulating? Only foreign monopolies.
How privacy focused can they be when they want to scan devices on the client side for illicit material?
These roundups are great. I always learn something new and interesting.
How can Europe possibly spot the world years of AI development while not having a big software industry of its own and think they would be able to come up with something competitive? They’ll be building data centers to use other people’s AI.
Yeah, good question, isn't it? I feel like the answer to why Europe is in this spot ties directly into what I just mentioned here:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/roundup-85-most-policy-is-also-industrial/comment/303118912
The debt profligacy is worse than you describe and the other observers. Pradhan and Goodhart in their most recent book outline the many policy challenges from an aging population, ,demographic changes and the fact we will have more stubborn inflation as immigration tails off, along with the fact that China will unlikely deflate the world this time around. Perhaps AI will save us but it seems warranted to be skeptical. And central banks may face immense challenges they are not equipped to handle given the political constraints. Maybe a crisis will be needed to get all hands on deck.
Speaking of debt, China is also wrestling with two monumental, interconnected debt traps built up over the last two decades: massive private sector real estate debt and excessive local government off-balance-sheet debt (LGFVs).
The process of deleveraging and digesting these liabilities will likely drag down China's growth engine well past 2030. What makes it particularly precarious is the timing—by the time the worst of this debt overhang is cleared, the full-blown impact of China's rapid demographic aging will hit with full force. It’s a double whammy: a prolonged balance sheet recession followed immediately by a shrinking workforce.
Noah's take on trains is misguided. The glaringly obvious reason we lack modern rail transit is because BigOil&Gas monopolists don't like efficient local commuter and short-distance inter-state rail transportation. They like selling the gasoline and aviation fuel consumed by much-less efficient modes. We have existing right-of-ways that are not being used for commuters or have been abandoned. In Sonoma & Marin Counties we now have modern commuter rail, developed in the past 15 years, that utilized an existing rail right-of-way. Was it cheap? No. Is it successful? Yes.
Somebody read “Abundance “ on science and railroads. No credits.
Regarding the science funding paradigm (#1), I would be thrilled by this in any other administration, but as things stand, anything like this being implemented in the current administration would just represent another tool for OMB to savage existing state capacity. Even the metascience work which should be purely informational can easily be twisted by bad faith actors to steer money away from politically disfavored entities.
I agree with Noah, but am more concerned about the weaponization potential. These are really interesting ideas that should be strongly considered by the next competent administration.
Re: why Indian women wouldn't go out in public more, uh: Maybe because a woman alone in public faces a significant risk of being assaulted, across large swathes of the country?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewqyn2p1lno
https://fpa.org/confronting-violence-against-women-in-india/
Reading Noah's roundups is always an intellectual treat!
I can fully validate point #5 regarding China’s dominance in critical mineral refining. China’s industry leaders and policymakers are acutely aware that their core leverage lies in refining rare-earth tech, scale, and supply chain integration—not raw natural endowment. There is a strong consensus domestically that the West won't be able to reverse this processing advantage within at least a ten-year horizon.
Broadly speaking, China is far more sensitive to and serious about the value of physical manufacturing, supply chain scaling, and the accumulation of that "tacit knowledge" Noah mentioned. The West—especially Europe—often makes the fundamental mistake of treating policy and GDPR-like laws as something that can top-down dictate and bind technology, rather than letting technical realities shape policy. It’s putting the cart way before the horse.
"in NYC, the problem really is just fixing the system." If you have a magic wand lying around that can do this please bring it by.