A few days ago the news (not too unexpected) that following the entry into force of the European directive on Copyright, Google will not respect it. Obviously Google has been waiting for a country to ratify it to say "puppa", according to a logic of "divide and conquer", and so far there is nothing strange, given Google's political agenda.
And here we are at the point: but has anyone understood what Google's political agenda is? Although it is obvious, and common with many of the other OTTs, it would not seem that the masses have understood it. And then let's try to put together a little bit of what we know.
What we see in all OTTs is the attempt to resist national laws, with the excuse that "the internet, being supranational, cannot follow local rules". The thing would seem legitimate, except that Google, Facebook and others are in turn local entities, therefore subject to American law.
In detail, we discover that:
- The big OTTs (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) when it comes to deciding which content is legitimate or not do not refer to the constitutions and laws of the countries, but only to their "corporate policies".
- The big OTTs, when it comes to issues related to privacy, never refer to the rights enshrined in the constitutions (articles 15 and 10 of the Italian and German constitutions, for example), but are always concerned with referring to the "internet law" (which does not exist) and implicitly to American law, to which they are subject.
- The big OTTs, when it comes to deciding on the implementation of rules, always decide to find ways to disregard them, not apply them or violate them with impunity: this obviously does not apply to American law, which does not have the military strength to disobey ( at the moment).
However, we must ask ourselves what the final result is. Let us ask ourselves, in short, how would a world in which the great OTTs obey only to their own laws, which obviously include the American laws. Well, the answer is simple.
The big OTTs, like Google and Facebook, are working for the whole world / internet to fall under US laws.
Because if we think about it, it's not like Facebook can write anything in the "company policy" with which it judges whether content is passable or not. IT MUST ALSO respect American laws, because it would have no way of escaping an American investigation. Thus, Facebook has created a content censorship committee, despite the fact that Italian, German, French and generally European constitutions prohibit censorship and entrust the same task to the judiciary.
But Facebook, in doing this, is showing that they don't care about constitutions and laws: all they do is to REPLACE them, forming their own internal "magistracy" that judges the contents (and the accounts responsible for them) , on the basis of its own rules, which necessarily have American law as the only limit.
So ultimately, we have two billion people who obey US laws. But now ask yourself what would happen if Facebook made its own currency, as it tries to do with Libra.
Since Facebook, like Google, does not intend to comply with European laws, it would be a question of creating coins (and if we are talking about blockchains of private contracts) they do NOT obey any law other than the American one. Furthermore, even the contracts stipulated on Facebook (through the relevant marketplace) are not subject to private law between Italian, French, or German or Polish, but to private AMERICAN law.
I gave the example of money for two reasons: Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon have been trying for years to create their own monetary system. The problem is that these systems are NOT regulated by local laws. And the deluded ones who believe them regulated by the "laws of the Internet" forget that Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon are AMERICAN companies; therefore they are not regulated by "internet" laws, but by AMERICAN laws.
Now let's imagine a world where the vast majority of contracts between private individuals (a purchase on Amazon, like any purchase, is a contract between private individuals) are regulated by American law. And even the monetary rules are regulated by American law, because the big OTTs are American. Under these hypothetical conditions, Draghi can also do all the QE he wants, but if Apple, Facebook & co decide to raise the commissions to buy their cryptomains, in the end they make their text.
I named the coins because this is actually the time when "internet" comes off the screen and begins to impact in reality "that non- native digital people recognize as such".
If we imagine a world made of IoT, where physical reality is dominated by cloud-made entities and artificial intelligences THAT REPLY TO THE AMERICAN LAW, cars that drive on their own and in case of accidents the houses RESPOND TO THE AMERICAN LAW, where the currency is governed by entities that REPLY TO AMERICAN LAW, communication between people is governed by bodies that REPLY TO AMERICAN LAW, the press needs to receive traffic from companies that REPLY TO AMERICAN LAW, and purchases are online and governed by entities that MEET THE AMERICAN LAW, and everyone responds ONLY to American law, all we have is an American government
who uses large companies instead of armies to invade the world. Because in the end, if you force other countries to use your laws for everything, eliminating them, you have invaded, occupied and subdued them.
And I'm not kidding: the problem with Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook & co, is that they are letting believe that they don't care about local laws to apply "corporate policies" or "the internet law", but in the end they are all American companies, and therefore the "corporate policies" and the "laws of the Internet" are simply THE PRIVATE AND CRIMINAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
And we see it in practice today: the way Google handles copyright is legal in the American civil code, but not in the European one. The moment google is saying "I don't care about European laws because they are local", is he claiming that he doesn't care about American ones? Obviously not, because otherwise the CEO would end up in jail.
Therefore, Google does not care about all the laws except the American ones : the law that applies when it does not respect the "local" laws is American law.
The same is true when Facebook intends to create its own "currency" disregarding local regulators and existing central banks, when Amazon imposes rules on its workers that are illegal everywhere but not in the US, when Amazon imposes a right on sellers affiliated to its store civil valid only in the US, when Apple applies rules on the possession of phones, such as copyright rules, which are valid are in the US, etc.
In general, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Apple and all the American OTTs have a common agenda: to make sure that the whole world falls under the jurisdiction of the Americans, that the only courts able to settle a dispute are the American ones , and they do so by imposing "company rules" that in fact respond only to American laws.
The excuse that "the internet does not follow local laws" would be fine if there was not a glaring exception, that is the local US law: at one time, when internet companies were distributed a little everywhere, it was even rational to think of a "law of the Internet "that should not take into account the interaction between local laws.
But today that all the big companies are concentrated in the USA, the "law of the internet" is nothing but American jurisprudence. The "Internet constitution" is simply the American constitution. And so on.
All OTTs have only one agenda in common: obliterating the rule of law in every country in the world, canceling constitutions, applying American law in their place. They intend to dismiss every court in every country in the world, replacing it by the competent American court.
Ultimately, they intend to be the army with which the US occupies every country on the planet.