repubblica.it
EU's Reactive Tech Policy Hampers Growth
The European Union's reactive approach to technological development, exemplified by its late response to Big Tech's dominance and the GDPR's unintended consequences, has hindered its technological independence and economic growth, contrasting sharply with the proactive strategies of US firms.
- How has the EU's regulatory approach, particularly the GDPR, impacted its technological competitiveness and economic growth?
- By focusing on reactive legislation instead of proactive technological development, the EU has allowed US Big Tech companies to establish a dominant position. This reactive strategy, exemplified by the GDPR, has resulted in significant bureaucratic burdens and limited the EU's technological independence.
- What are the primary consequences of the EU's reactive approach to technological development compared to the proactive strategies of US Big Tech companies?
- The EU's reactive approach to Big Tech's dominance, prioritizing regulations like GDPR after the fact, has hampered its technological development and economic growth. This contrasts sharply with the proactive strategies of US Big Tech firms, which prioritize innovation and market capture.
- What proactive measures could the EU adopt to foster technological independence and reduce its reliance on US and Chinese technology in the medium to long term?
- The EU's failure to develop a long-term technological strategy has left it vulnerable to US and Chinese technological dominance. To counteract this, the EU needs to shift towards proactive measures such as mandatory open-source software in public administrations and a focus on internal market development to reduce reliance on foreign technology.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames Big Tech's actions as aggressive and manipulative, consistently using language that portrays them as antagonists. The EU is presented as a reactive victim, underlining the power imbalance. The use of military metaphors (e.g., "Blitzkrieg," "war") further reinforces this adversarial framing.
Language Bias
The article uses charged language such as "aggressive," "manipulative," "attack," and "war" to describe Big Tech's actions. These terms evoke negative emotions and bias the reader against Big Tech. More neutral terms such as "proactive," "strategic," and "competitive" could be used to describe similar actions.
Bias by Omission
The analysis lacks a discussion of potential benefits or alternative perspectives of Big Tech's strategies. It focuses heavily on the negative impacts and doesn't explore possible justifications or unintended positive consequences of their actions. The omission of these counterpoints creates a biased narrative.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between the EU's regulatory approach and Big Tech's proactive strategies, implying that only one approach is viable. It overlooks the possibility of a balanced approach that combines regulation with proactive technological development.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights Europe's lagging technological development compared to the US and China, resulting from a reactive rather than proactive approach to technological strategy. This inaction hinders innovation and the development of crucial infrastructure, impacting negatively on the goal of building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization and fostering innovation.