Alex Newman/The World
A requirement for Google's YouTube, Facebook's Instagram and other sharing platforms to install filters to catch copyright violations known as Article 13 (now renumbered to Article 17) has triggered protests, with an online petition garnering more than 5 million signatures so far.
The European Commission wants to reform copyright rules to protect Europe's cultural heritage and ensure fair compensation to publishers, broadcasters and artists. The European Parliament is due to vote on the commission's proposal on Tuesday.
And it was only last year when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said before Congress last year that "It's clear now that we didn't do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well ... Our position is not that regulation is bad. I think the real question is: What is the right framework for this? Not, should there be one?"
One thing is certain: In Europe, the framework for reining in high-tech companies is taking shape faster than in the US.
Margrethe Vestager is the EU's competition commissioner and former deputy prime minister of Denmark. She serves as a powerful force in the regulation of global businesses, and she joined The World's host Marco Werman in the studio to explain the impact that her role has and how regulations are decided.
Margrethe Vestager: Well, it means that I'm the law enforcer. So, it's my job to have the leadership of the law enforcement of European competition law.
That's correct, yes. Everyone is welcome to do business in Europe. No matter the flag you're flying or where you have your home, but you will have to do business according to the European rulebook, when in Europe. This is why when someone complains or when we ourselves get a suspicion that something is wrong, we start investigating.
Alex Newman/The World
Well, take the first Google case. Here, you have a company which is dominant in search which has then used search to promote its own shopping comparison service and demote rivals in shopping comparison services, on average, to page four. This is a misuse of your success. You're more than welcome to be successful, but if you do become dominant. you get a special responsibility. The more power you have, the stronger your responsibility.
Well, there are a number of functions when we take a decision. One is to fine past behavior. Second is to say, "You've got to stop what you did and you cannot do anything to the equivalence." And then, of course, to start remedying the marketplace. What we see now after the Google shopping decision is that the shopping unit, the shopping box, has been opened to rivals. Now, I think in 3 out of 4 searches for a product, you would find rivals in the shopping box and in 40 percent of clicks on a product, that click would go to a rival of Google, to a merchant that is not in the Google universe. So, you see that the market is improving.
Competition legislation is a very strong tool, but just because you have a very big hammer you shouldn't think that everything is a nail. I think it is important that competition law enforcement works with regulation because you cannot do everything by competition tools. You need also the marketplace to be framed by, for instance, privacy issues, copyright issues, in order for this not to turn into something Wild West, where you basically just see the consumer as part of your product.
No, I don't think so. I think regulation works sometimes as an incentive. Of course, it very much depends on your state of mind. If you just want a completely open space to innovate or you say, "Well, I consider these to be things that I will build in, I will do, for instance, privacy by design instead of as an add-on. I'll add on something more or less superficial in the end." Instead of saying, "Of course, I respect the privacy of the people who will use my services." So, this is my starting point.
When it comes to privacy, we have different preferences. Some people really value their privacy. Some people really couldn't care less. What we're trying to say is that we can take legitimate decisions in our democracy as how to balance that, because our digital citizen rights, they are not for the most private person and they are not for the one who doesn't care at all. It's a balanced approach to say, "If you if you do this, then we can all find ourselves in this space."
He's absolutely right to say that Google has made a number of changes for rivals to be visible in this marketplace. When it comes to shopping comparison services, I think they're important for everyone so that you can find the cheapest product available in the quality you want, with the after services that you would be expecting, with the low shipping costs. In the Android case, they will be providing you a choice screen if the Google products have been preinstalled, so that you yourself can choose what do you actually want to do. So, yes, they are making a number of changes.
Well, I think to some degree, you're right. I myself try to maintain curiosity.
First of all, I get the results I'm looking for very often as the first result. I don't have to scroll through advertising and of course, that's a matter of preference. This is my preference.
Yes, they are privacy consistent. This is privacy by design services.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Reuters contributed to this report.
Every week, more than 2 million listeners tune into our broadcast and follow our digital coverage like this story, which is available to read for free thanks to charitable contributions from listeners like you. But less than 1% of our audience supports our program directly. From now through the end of the year, every gift will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donor, which means your gift will help us unlock a $67,000 challenge match.
Will you join our growing list of loyal supporters and double your impact today?