> While I agree with him that the US is becoming more unpredictable, I don't think the EU is much better, especially with regards to digital things where they can be worse in some ways.

It makes a lot more sense if you realize pretty much the sole motivation behind all this digital virtue signaling is "put my data somewhere Trump isn't."

Notice how no one really lists contingencies for "what if the EU goes off the rails"? There's always an implicit assumption that EU politics will always be "sane" (read: "aligned with my personal politics").

▲

9dev 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The political systems of the USA and the EU are extremely dissimilar. The US, by virtue of their "winner takes it all" mentality, is evidently pretty vulnerable to a mad leader single-handedly destroying decades of progress. Whereas the EU isn't a single entity, but a federation of 27 member states without central leadership. There is no "EU government", and thus no single corruptible entity that could turn "insane".

▲

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Notice how no one really lists contingencies for "what if the EU goes off the rails"?

Where did you try to find this? And what does "EU goes off the rails" actually mean here? There are a bunch of contingencies already in place for economic instability both for individual members states and EU-wide, there is "Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union" in case there is one rogue member, and then each member state has a bunch of their own contingencies already too.

What exactly is missing here?

> There's always an implicit assumption that EU politics will always be "sane" (read: "aligned with my personal politics").

I think you might severely misunderstand how decisions are made in EU, and also how regulations and such are actually implemented. I don't think there is any such assumptions at all, that's why we have elections, votes and referendums, because people and states have different opinions about what is sane vs not.

Where are you even getting these misconceptions from?

▲

xienze an hour ago | parent [-]

I think you misunderstood what I was talking about, or perhaps you're an example of it.

> And what does "EU goes off the rails" actually mean here?

It means, "what if the EU starts acting belligerently to other countries like the US has?" Where, hypothetically, would someone move their data since now the US and EU are off the table?

And if your answer is "well, you see that would simply be impossible because <waves hands about EU policy making>", then I guess you're an example of someone believing that EU politics will forever remain sane.

> that's why we have elections, votes and referendums, because people and states have different opinions about what is sane vs not.

Same situation as the US...

	▲	embedding-shape an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> It means, "what if the EU starts acting belligerently to other countries like the US has?" Where, hypothetically, would someone move their data since now the US and EU are off the table? You mean if a EU member state does this? Then those contingencies I mentioned earlier will be used. If you're a EU member and another EU member does that, you'd still have your data in EU, just not in that member state, if you had that. > And if your answer is "well, you see that would simply be impossible because <waves hands about EU policy making>", then I guess you're an example of someone believing that EU politics will forever remain sane. I've literally pointed you to concrete and very real contingencies that exists today, zero hand-waving. > Same situation as the US... I don't know how it works there, I just know that no one in the EU assumes everyone else will always agree with you, and if you look at how democracy works in EU and in the member states, I don't think anyone has those assumptions there either.