There's a big difference between governments regulating to benefit their own control and power, and regulating in favor of consumers. Most regulation in the EU have jack-all to do with consumers. There's a couple of niceties - having all prices displayed in comparable unites (EUR/kg, EUR/liter etc). But apart from that the regulation have broadly served as moats around the largest businesses.

▲

boonzeet 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are many EU directives which benefit consumers directly in tech, including, but not limited to:

Consumer rights - 14 day cooling off period for online purchases

Sale of goods - 2 year seller liability for defective goods

Right to repair - likely doesn’t need explanation, require manufacturers to offer repairs and replacement parts

Unfair commercial practices - prevent misleading or deceptive advertising

Unfair contract terms directive - prevents disproportionately one-sided provisions in T&Cs (think Disney giving themselves legal immunity for a free Disney+ trial)

The EU’s problem seems to be in communicating its benefits to its citizens.

	▲	ricardobayes 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wouldn't even call it a communication problem - I believe it's more a media problem, than anything. Good news are minimized and bad news are amplified to the maximum - nowadays even broadsheet newspapers operate with tabloid headlines, and that is really bad. We somehow need to "want" a slower news cycle and simultaneously push back against the algorithmic outrage. The world is more predictable and safer than ever but the perception of the average person is not this, it's manufactured outrage at every possible opportunity and topic. Despite the average european objectively being better off and safer than a decade ago, almost none feel that way and that is almost 100% due to the news algorithms being tuned to keep you in a constant dread cycle.
	▲	nickpp an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> cooling off [...] seller liability [...] Right to repair Let's not forget I am paying directly for those when I buy a product. Those benefits are not free, they cost money. The money has to come from somewhere. It can't come from profits (since those are the sacred reason the company exists in the first place) thus they will come from higher prices. Higher product prices mean less competitive companies. It also means fewer startups which must implement the required regulation no matter the market says. Then you need protectionism against Chinese competition. But the worst is that I must pay for those benefits whether if I want them or not. Thus my choice is reduced. I cannot vote with my wallet and send price signals in the market to tell sellers that I want those benefits or not and at what price. The market gets corrupted. The economy falters. Outside competitors gain. The Government needs to intervene again and again, growing stronger and more intrusive "for my own benefit". It's the decay spiral we are witnessing here in the EU right now.

▲

pdhborges 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you believe I can't get a list of 20 effective pro-consumer regulations drafted by the EU out of Gemini?

	▲	nickpp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe you should get that list from the European AI products that came from those awesome EU regulations.

▲

vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not even true in the concrete case we're talking about here.

As part of the AI Act, an important decision on a person (such as a hiring decision) cannot be made without human involvement.

You think that's not in favor of "consumers"? (also note the implicitly submissive framing of humans as receptacles for consumption instead of subjects with rights!)