"Customer support data is stored exclusively on EU-located networks and servers"
We should not just focus on the location. It's about who is managing the servers and networks.
diggan · 2h ago
> We should not just focus on the location
True, but location matters a great deal, because some countries have a tendency to MITM any physical link they can get their hands on, even if that means scuba divers or secret rooms. But also who it is who is managing it, agree.
pjc50 · 3h ago
SUSE S.A. ownership does seem to be entirely European, if you're worried about Safe Harbor type issues.
The focus should not be on the location, provided it is in the EU, but really the focus should be on carefully siloing the user data and make it only accessible to who needs them which is definitely no-one managing any servers and networks; it shouldn't matter (just dataloss, but not leaks which are not worthless). The info should be encrypted with different service dependent (healthcare, different levels, taxes etc) key pairs. As long as this data is accessible by anyone else but me, it's going to fall in the wrong hands anyway.
pjmlp · 3h ago
Ironically, as ex zealot, desilusied with the endless fragmentation of Linux distributions and desktop dream, FOSS OSes currently are looking as the only way out of American dominated consumer OSes and related programming languages.
Plus in my deep Penguin days, SuSE was one of my favourite distros, I loved yast based management, and the KDE integration.
DaSHacka · 2h ago
> related programming languages.
Does it matter what country a programming language originates from?
pjmlp · 2h ago
Yes, unless they are 100% under international standards, or 100% open source, they are subject to export restrictions from the overloads contributors, as per the countries their headquarters are located on.
it's honestly a crime that they don't get more traction. Tooling they've put out like the Open Build Service (which is distro agnostic), is fantastic. I've been using Tumbleweed on dev machines for a long time, and the fact that they ship fully tested images is imo just a vastly better way to do a rolling release.
DrillShopper · 1h ago
Their corporate support is a joke.
When we bring a problem to them, which we pay them for, the turn around time is awful, and about 2/5 cases I end up having to break out the debugging tools and root cause/fix fix it because their support engineers can't be bothered.
Especially their nVidia support. Worse than useless.
pch00 · 1h ago
> Their corporate support is a joke.
SUSE also really like their "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!"-style random subscription audits too.
tremon · 1h ago
Why should SuSE be on the line for supporting nVidia, rather than nVidia itself or your hardware supplier? Or is SuSE now also selling corporate computer hardware?
shakna · 46m ago
Because its in scope for their support license that you're paying them for.
This is really good news. Europe has kept saying that digital sovereignty is a must, but for some reason, they have primarily considered US-based projects like Fedora and almost never SUSE. This has always made me wonder, because SUSE already has almost all the necessary tools; for example, Rancher and openSUSE and they're well known in Europe for quite a while.
defraudbah · 4h ago
good luck to suse, hopefully denmark will be first to migrate to linux and stay there unlike other countries (germany i am looking at you).
other than that i don't really believe owning EU data is the battle we can win with more regulations. I bet in 10 years nothing will change, maybe a few more grants, a few more laws..
saubeidl · 4h ago
I think regulations can be highly successful, if used aggressively enough. Look at China - they own their data, because they didn't allow it to be exfiltrated.
I think the issue at hand is that we've been half-assing our regulatory efforts.
Tajnymag · 4h ago
Have you just used China as a good example for user privacy?
saubeidl · 4h ago
No, as a good example for keeping your data sovereign. What you do with said sovereignty is another matter - I expect that part would play out differently in the EU than in China.
jorvi · 3h ago
I wouldn't be too sure of the EU being a particular strong stalwart of public institutions vis a vis privacy.
They keep trying to hammer through anti-encryption or logging or scanning laws.
Big picture, there isn't a government in the world that is better for their citizens than the EU, but it's more like least-worst.
For example, free speech is a thing that the EU or its national governments love to encroach on and I am quite envious of the fiery defense it gets in the US.
saubeidl · 3h ago
> They keep trying to hammer through anti-encryption or logging or scanning laws.
There is a fraction that keeps trying to do so. The fact that they consistently keep failing is a sign the system in the EU as a whole is doing well in this regard.
> For example, free speech is a thing that the EU or its national governments love to encroach on and I am quite envious of the fiery defense it gets in the US.
Personally, I am quite glad we don't allow Nazi propaganda to spread as easily as the Americans. We've learned our lesson from history - the Americans are right now in the phase where they discover the consequences of allowing rampant misinformation to manipulate their electorate.
To quote Goebbels:
> When our enemies say: well, we gave you the freedom of opinion back then- yeah, you gave it to us, that's in no way evidence that we should return the favor! Your stupidity shall not be contagious! That you granted it to us is evidence of how dumb you are!
DaSHacka · 2h ago
> Personally, I am quite glad we don't allow Nazi propaganda to spread as easily as the Americans. We've learned our lesson from history - the Americans are right now in the phase where they discover the consequences of allowing rampant misinformation to manipulate their electorate.
Lol, just what I'd expect from a European. "Oh no, big government please protect me against the scary Nazi misinformation!" As if the U.S. didn't hold true to freedom of speech when the actual Nazis rose to power, and still beat them out in the free marketplace of ideas all the same.
> To quote Goebbels:
>
> > When our enemies say: well, we gave you the freedom of opinion back then- yeah, you gave it to us, that's in no way evidence that we should return the favor! Your stupidity shall not be contagious! That you granted it to us is evidence of how dumb you are!
So, better to never have freedom of speech at all, than to have it and risk it being diminished some day? This doesn't stop Nazis from taking over the government or the rhetoric from spreading—see AfD's rise in Germany—it just means once they've grappled control of the government, now there's established precedent for them to censor anti-Nazi speech and expression without any sudden changes.
Well, good luck with that. It didn't seem to work out so well the last time you took that approach, but what do I know.
saubeidl · 2h ago
> As if the U.S. didn't hold true to freedom of speech when the actual Nazis rose to power, and still beat them out in the free marketplace of ideas all the same.
They beat them out on the battlefield, at great expense in both resources and human lives. The "free marketplace of ideas" was unable to stop Nazism.
> So, better to never have freedom of speech at all, than to have it and risk it being diminished some day?
What you're referring to has been formulated by Dr. Karl Popper, an Austrian who had to witness the rise of Nazism as the Paradox of Tolerance. To quote:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
[...]
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Popper’s perspective aligns with the view of tolerance as a social contract. The protection of tolerance extends only to those who reciprocate it. When one party breaches this contract by imposing on others’ rights or safety, the injured party is no longer obligated to extend tolerance to the aggressor.
FirmwareBurner · 52m ago
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
And who gets to decide who the intolerant parties are in an argument/dispute in order to justify the use of force against them?
The quote you posted literally advocates for censorship, oppression and genocide of the other side, except since it's of those YOU view as being intolerant, so then it's somehow moral and OK for you to do it against them, but you wouldn't agree when the other party does it to you when they view you as the intolerant one..
Because that's exactly what the Nazis did when they got into power: they removed the ones who they considered to be intolerant form their perspective, and it's exactly the rhetoric Zionists use to justify genocide in Gaza: they're just removing intolerant people so then it's morally ok.
saubeidl · 50m ago
It is clear you either have no idea what the Nazis did or are purposefully trying to muddy the waters to provide cover for Neonazism.
FirmwareBurner · 44m ago
You're the one providing no arguments when people use critical thought to dissect your comments.
Because your comments can't stand on their own in the face of criticism, so you only retort with emotional appeals by calling people various labels of intolerance, or using offtopic quotes of Jews persecuted by Nazis for emotional manipulation, but you have no free thoughts or logical arguments of your own making that can stand up to on-topic criticism.
That's why you haven't answered my previous comment, because you know you have no argument here.
saubeidl · 37m ago
When people use critical thought to dissect my comments, I respond in kind. You should try it some time.
Regarding your attempted equation of Nazism and anti-Nazism, a common tactic used by modern day fascists to create a sense of moral ambivalence, here's a simple fact:
The Nazis did not, in fact, persecute people they thought of as intolerant. The Nazis were driven by racial and ethnic hatred - intolerance was a point of pride for them, not something to be fought.
Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look.
FirmwareBurner · 28m ago
> intolerance was a point of pride for them
Literally no party ever, not even the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, ever thought "we're the bad intolerant guys and we're proud of it".
On the contrary, they all thought they were on the right side of history and that all the atrocities they were doing, they were the right thing, done for the greater good.
Nazi literally means "national" and "socialist" as in for the country and the working people, both words with good meaning behind them on their own, up until WW2.
>Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look.
What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
saubeidl · 23m ago
You once again are twisting my word and misrepresenting my point.
Never did I say "we're the bad guys and we're proud of it" was their self-identification. They did, however think "we will not tolerate the Jewish threat to our aryan volk" - i.e. an openly pro-intolerance ideology.
I would highly recommend you gain a deeper understanding of issues before making bold proclamations about things you know very little about.
> What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
You do not even engage with my arguments. You try to derail them, by building straw men to then get upset about, as with the example above. It shows either a limited understanding of the matter at hand or a conscious attempt at muddying the waters.
This behavior, too, is well-documented historically.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." - Jean Paul Sartre.
FirmwareBurner · 15m ago
Not sure how calling people who disagree with you as antisemites helps in any way. I said before that you have no arguments of your own and so you just keep quoting historical people with off-topic quotes out of place to derail the convo and paint people who disagree with you as the bad guys.
Edit: Answering to your reply from below here to not balloon the thread any further:
> "I did not call you an antisemite, I pointed out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites."
So your argument is: I'm not calling you an antisemite directly, I'm just using a quote to describe your pattern of behavior as being antisemitic. Do you even hear yourself?
Like I said, all you do is call people who disagree with you labels, then pull out off-topic quotes from historical persecuted figures to use as human shields while dodging arguments. It's a well documented behavioral pattern of those who lack critical thinking and know their arguments are on shaky grounds.
saubeidl · 13m ago
Once again, you are twisting my words.
I did not call you an antisemite, I quoted Sartre pointing out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites.
That you see yourself reflected in such should give you pause, but is no fault of mine.
He who doesn't learn from history is doomed to repeat it.
FirmwareBurner · 2h ago
>Personally, I am quite glad we don't allow Nazi propaganda to spread as easily as the Americans.
Yes, let's give up our freedoms and live in a censored police state to prevent us from becoming Nazis again, that will surely end well. There were even books and movies about these dystopias and THIS is your solution? You can't make this up.
>We've learned our lesson from history
Your nation lived under Nazism 80 years ago, which you always use as an argument for why you're right, but it seems you learned nothing from your history, or learned the wrong lessons if you think government censorship is the way to go when that's exactly what helped get Nazis into power in the first palce. I can't facepalm hard enough at this.
For someone invoking the Nazi argument every other of your comments on HN, you sure are short sighted and lack critical thought and self reflection of what you're saying.
Please bring some arguments that can be backed by facts or studies that can be peer reviewed and examined by critical thinking, not by emotional appeals to "Nazis are bad m'kay".
Let's look at the results: For all its faults, the US's boundaryless freedom of speech assured by its constitution made it the longest running democracy to date, meanwhile your country has been juggling between monarchies, dictators and government policed nanny states all its existence, but has the audacity to think it knows what true freedom of speech is like when it never had it to begin with.
saubeidl · 1h ago
You can make it up and you did.
It's easy to misrepresent an argument so you have a nice straw man to get mad about.
I would invite you to attempt some more intellectual honesty - it would make for better discussion.
Propelloni · 12m ago
> Please bring some arguments that can be backed by facts or studies that can be peer reviewed and examined by critical thinking, not by emotional appeals to "Nazis are bad m'kay".
You mean, like, the vast body of literature, the many museums, the crates of pictures and photos, the miles of movie rolls documenting and discussing Nazi atrocities, ideology, philosophy, science, policies and system of governance?
> Let's look at the results: For all its faults, the US's boundaryless freedom of speech assured by its constitution made it the longest running democracy to date, meanwhile your country has been juggling between monarchies, dictators and government policed nanny states all its existence, but has the audacity to think it knows what true freedom of speech is like when it never had it to begin with.
That's just alluding to American Exceptionalism. Germany did that, too, a lot actually. "Deutscher Sonderweg" was the key phrase. Anyhow, Nazi Germany is 80 years ago now and quite well researched, Socialist East Germany is 36 years ago now and also quite well researched, and all Germany has to show for it is the idea that if you like your liberty and justice for all you have to draw a line when somebody says "no, not for you, only for us."
Granted, it is not much, but it is something. If you look at it empirically, Germany has falsified a few approaches, while the USA is running on a hypothesis resembling the Weimar Republic in many ways, but certainly not all. EUropean's can't help it if they remember that shit better than USians, they were closer by for the last century or so.
pineaux · 40m ago
The longest run up until now... But you shouldnt be so sure that it is still a democracy and you shouldnt be so sure that the fact it was kept a democracy for so long was because of free speech absolutisme. I for one, think that the US of A has lost a lot of its narrative in the last 20 years. I think its the narrative that kept it a democracy until now.
saubeidl · 36m ago
Not the longest. The longest is San Marino - since 1600.
palata · 4h ago
I think it's more an example of successfully enforcing regulations.
thyristan · 3h ago
China is especially good as an example because it shows that most tech companies can be made to bend to their regulatory whim. Europe is hesitant in that regard for fear of getting left behind. China shows that this fear is mostly unfounded.
And in cases where Western companies don't want to invest in China due to their regulations, local alternatives seem to quickly pick up the slack and over time even become better than their Western counterparts (at least in certain aspects). Just look at all those Chat+Payment things over there.
em500 · 1h ago
> Europe is hesitant in that regard for fear of getting left behind. China shows that this fear is mostly unfounded.
It's hard to transplant the Chinese experience elsewhere. Not only due to Europe's current far greater dependence on American software and cloud providers, but also due to China's far larger pool of technical expertise, likely resulting from many decades of heavy emphasis on math and science education, together with far greater social and monetary rewards. I doubt that European politicians or their electorates have the patience for a big turnaround that may not start to pay off for several decades or even generations.
saubeidl · 1h ago
Thankfully, we have parts of the ex soviet bloc that had the same heavy emphasis on math and science. You wouldn't believe the number of Romanian software engs I've worked with.
pjmlp · 3h ago
So far we thought the though guy on the school playground would always be on the same team, now it doesn't feel like it will ever be the case again.
saubeidl · 3h ago
Yup, it's a win-win.
You either bend a foreign company to your will or you get to build a local champion.
We should not just focus on the location. It's about who is managing the servers and networks.
True, but location matters a great deal, because some countries have a tendency to MITM any physical link they can get their hands on, even if that means scuba divers or secret rooms. But also who it is who is managing it, agree.
https://siliconangle.com/2023/08/18/suse-taken-private-major...
Plus in my deep Penguin days, SuSE was one of my favourite distros, I loved yast based management, and the KDE integration.
Does it matter what country a programming language originates from?
Some examples,
https://www.java.com/en/download/help/error_embargoed.html
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/nuget-org/policies/e...
it's honestly a crime that they don't get more traction. Tooling they've put out like the Open Build Service (which is distro agnostic), is fantastic. I've been using Tumbleweed on dev machines for a long time, and the fact that they ship fully tested images is imo just a vastly better way to do a rolling release.
When we bring a problem to them, which we pay them for, the turn around time is awful, and about 2/5 cases I end up having to break out the debugging tools and root cause/fix fix it because their support engineers can't be bothered.
Especially their nVidia support. Worse than useless.
SUSE also really like their "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!"-style random subscription audits too.
nVidia is neither Java nor a web server.
https://www.suse.com/support/policy-products/
other than that i don't really believe owning EU data is the battle we can win with more regulations. I bet in 10 years nothing will change, maybe a few more grants, a few more laws..
I think the issue at hand is that we've been half-assing our regulatory efforts.
They keep trying to hammer through anti-encryption or logging or scanning laws.
Big picture, there isn't a government in the world that is better for their citizens than the EU, but it's more like least-worst.
For example, free speech is a thing that the EU or its national governments love to encroach on and I am quite envious of the fiery defense it gets in the US.
There is a fraction that keeps trying to do so. The fact that they consistently keep failing is a sign the system in the EU as a whole is doing well in this regard.
> For example, free speech is a thing that the EU or its national governments love to encroach on and I am quite envious of the fiery defense it gets in the US.
Personally, I am quite glad we don't allow Nazi propaganda to spread as easily as the Americans. We've learned our lesson from history - the Americans are right now in the phase where they discover the consequences of allowing rampant misinformation to manipulate their electorate.
To quote Goebbels:
> When our enemies say: well, we gave you the freedom of opinion back then- yeah, you gave it to us, that's in no way evidence that we should return the favor! Your stupidity shall not be contagious! That you granted it to us is evidence of how dumb you are!
Lol, just what I'd expect from a European. "Oh no, big government please protect me against the scary Nazi misinformation!" As if the U.S. didn't hold true to freedom of speech when the actual Nazis rose to power, and still beat them out in the free marketplace of ideas all the same.
> To quote Goebbels: > > > When our enemies say: well, we gave you the freedom of opinion back then- yeah, you gave it to us, that's in no way evidence that we should return the favor! Your stupidity shall not be contagious! That you granted it to us is evidence of how dumb you are!
So, better to never have freedom of speech at all, than to have it and risk it being diminished some day? This doesn't stop Nazis from taking over the government or the rhetoric from spreading—see AfD's rise in Germany—it just means once they've grappled control of the government, now there's established precedent for them to censor anti-Nazi speech and expression without any sudden changes.
Well, good luck with that. It didn't seem to work out so well the last time you took that approach, but what do I know.
They beat them out on the battlefield, at great expense in both resources and human lives. The "free marketplace of ideas" was unable to stop Nazism.
> So, better to never have freedom of speech at all, than to have it and risk it being diminished some day?
What you're referring to has been formulated by Dr. Karl Popper, an Austrian who had to witness the rise of Nazism as the Paradox of Tolerance. To quote:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
[...]
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Popper’s perspective aligns with the view of tolerance as a social contract. The protection of tolerance extends only to those who reciprocate it. When one party breaches this contract by imposing on others’ rights or safety, the injured party is no longer obligated to extend tolerance to the aggressor.
And who gets to decide who the intolerant parties are in an argument/dispute in order to justify the use of force against them?
The quote you posted literally advocates for censorship, oppression and genocide of the other side, except since it's of those YOU view as being intolerant, so then it's somehow moral and OK for you to do it against them, but you wouldn't agree when the other party does it to you when they view you as the intolerant one..
Because that's exactly what the Nazis did when they got into power: they removed the ones who they considered to be intolerant form their perspective, and it's exactly the rhetoric Zionists use to justify genocide in Gaza: they're just removing intolerant people so then it's morally ok.
Because your comments can't stand on their own in the face of criticism, so you only retort with emotional appeals by calling people various labels of intolerance, or using offtopic quotes of Jews persecuted by Nazis for emotional manipulation, but you have no free thoughts or logical arguments of your own making that can stand up to on-topic criticism.
That's why you haven't answered my previous comment, because you know you have no argument here.
Regarding your attempted equation of Nazism and anti-Nazism, a common tactic used by modern day fascists to create a sense of moral ambivalence, here's a simple fact:
The Nazis did not, in fact, persecute people they thought of as intolerant. The Nazis were driven by racial and ethnic hatred - intolerance was a point of pride for them, not something to be fought.
Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look.
Literally no party ever, not even the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, ever thought "we're the bad intolerant guys and we're proud of it".
On the contrary, they all thought they were on the right side of history and that all the atrocities they were doing, they were the right thing, done for the greater good.
Nazi literally means "national" and "socialist" as in for the country and the working people, both words with good meaning behind them on their own, up until WW2.
>Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look.
What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
Never did I say "we're the bad guys and we're proud of it" was their self-identification. They did, however think "we will not tolerate the Jewish threat to our aryan volk" - i.e. an openly pro-intolerance ideology.
I would highly recommend you gain a deeper understanding of issues before making bold proclamations about things you know very little about.
> What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
You do not even engage with my arguments. You try to derail them, by building straw men to then get upset about, as with the example above. It shows either a limited understanding of the matter at hand or a conscious attempt at muddying the waters.
This behavior, too, is well-documented historically.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." - Jean Paul Sartre.
Edit: Answering to your reply from below here to not balloon the thread any further:
> "I did not call you an antisemite, I pointed out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites."
So your argument is: I'm not calling you an antisemite directly, I'm just using a quote to describe your pattern of behavior as being antisemitic. Do you even hear yourself?
Like I said, all you do is call people who disagree with you labels, then pull out off-topic quotes from historical persecuted figures to use as human shields while dodging arguments. It's a well documented behavioral pattern of those who lack critical thinking and know their arguments are on shaky grounds.
I did not call you an antisemite, I quoted Sartre pointing out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites.
That you see yourself reflected in such should give you pause, but is no fault of mine.
He who doesn't learn from history is doomed to repeat it.
Yes, let's give up our freedoms and live in a censored police state to prevent us from becoming Nazis again, that will surely end well. There were even books and movies about these dystopias and THIS is your solution? You can't make this up.
>We've learned our lesson from history
Your nation lived under Nazism 80 years ago, which you always use as an argument for why you're right, but it seems you learned nothing from your history, or learned the wrong lessons if you think government censorship is the way to go when that's exactly what helped get Nazis into power in the first palce. I can't facepalm hard enough at this.
For someone invoking the Nazi argument every other of your comments on HN, you sure are short sighted and lack critical thought and self reflection of what you're saying.
Please bring some arguments that can be backed by facts or studies that can be peer reviewed and examined by critical thinking, not by emotional appeals to "Nazis are bad m'kay".
Let's look at the results: For all its faults, the US's boundaryless freedom of speech assured by its constitution made it the longest running democracy to date, meanwhile your country has been juggling between monarchies, dictators and government policed nanny states all its existence, but has the audacity to think it knows what true freedom of speech is like when it never had it to begin with.
It's easy to misrepresent an argument so you have a nice straw man to get mad about.
I would invite you to attempt some more intellectual honesty - it would make for better discussion.
You mean, like, the vast body of literature, the many museums, the crates of pictures and photos, the miles of movie rolls documenting and discussing Nazi atrocities, ideology, philosophy, science, policies and system of governance?
> Let's look at the results: For all its faults, the US's boundaryless freedom of speech assured by its constitution made it the longest running democracy to date, meanwhile your country has been juggling between monarchies, dictators and government policed nanny states all its existence, but has the audacity to think it knows what true freedom of speech is like when it never had it to begin with.
That's just alluding to American Exceptionalism. Germany did that, too, a lot actually. "Deutscher Sonderweg" was the key phrase. Anyhow, Nazi Germany is 80 years ago now and quite well researched, Socialist East Germany is 36 years ago now and also quite well researched, and all Germany has to show for it is the idea that if you like your liberty and justice for all you have to draw a line when somebody says "no, not for you, only for us."
Granted, it is not much, but it is something. If you look at it empirically, Germany has falsified a few approaches, while the USA is running on a hypothesis resembling the Weimar Republic in many ways, but certainly not all. EUropean's can't help it if they remember that shit better than USians, they were closer by for the last century or so.
And in cases where Western companies don't want to invest in China due to their regulations, local alternatives seem to quickly pick up the slack and over time even become better than their Western counterparts (at least in certain aspects). Just look at all those Chat+Payment things over there.
It's hard to transplant the Chinese experience elsewhere. Not only due to Europe's current far greater dependence on American software and cloud providers, but also due to China's far larger pool of technical expertise, likely resulting from many decades of heavy emphasis on math and science education, together with far greater social and monetary rewards. I doubt that European politicians or their electorates have the patience for a big turnaround that may not start to pay off for several decades or even generations.
You either bend a foreign company to your will or you get to build a local champion.