US Tech Hires Lobbyists To Kill EU Regulation.
This piece utilizes libertarian think-tank rhetoric (FEE) to frame necessary antitrust and data privacy regulation as a dangerous 'assault on free markets' and a 'weakening of the West.' The true conflict is US Big Tech and its political proxies fighting to preserve their monopolistic gatekeeper power and prevent accountability for systemic misinformation and market abuse.
EU anti-monopoly regulations (DMA/DSA/AI Act) are destructive 'interventionism' that must be fought off with tariffs (Section 301).
The Trump administration's aggressive use of Section 301 tariffs against China and demands for content moderation (or threats to ban competitors like TikTok).
The contradiction: Protectionism is only bad when it targets US-based corporate monopolists; when the US uses the exact same economic tool against rivals or for political gain, it’s 'necessary trade defense.'
Summary
The article warns that aggressive EU regulation (DMA, DSA, AI Act) is hurting American tech firms, reducing innovation, restricting consumer choice, and fragmenting the Western alliance against China. It highlights fines levied against Apple, Meta, and Google, and emphasizes the Trump administration's threat to retaliate using Section 301 trade law. The conclusion advocates for total market liberalization, asserting that regulation undermines progress and freedom.
⚡ Key Facts
- The DMA and DSA target US Big Tech, forcing them to open ecosystems and regulate 'harmful' content.
- The Trump administration threatens Section 301 tariffs, framing EU rules as 'disguised tariffs.'
- The article characterizes the EU's moves as an 'assault on free speech' and an 'interventionism that exceeds the role a state should play.'
- The AI Act is framed as yet another barrier that will delay products and raise costs for American innovators.
US Tech Hires Lobbyists To Kill EU Regulation.
Protectionism is only bad when it targets US-based corporate monopolists; when the US uses the exact same economic tool against rivals or for political gain, it’s 'necessary trade defense.'