In the speech US vice President J D Vance gave to the "security" conference held some time ago in Munich, he said that the controls Europeans are seeking to apply to digital discourse over the internet contradict Western "values" that promote free speech. He argued that the Europeans seem to want to introduce internet censorship.
Actually, in terms of how Europeans explain what they're trying to do with legislation covering digital regulation, it is to not let social media spread news and information which are manifestly incorrect or false, as these serve to unbalance public opinion.
Are false news (and so on) being digitally streamed? Yes. Is this being done in a planned manner by people who wish to propagate as facts, distorted news intended to manipulate public opinion? Here too, the huge probability stands out that the reply is: yes. Who has been against European digital regulation? Essentially the billionaire owners of American social media platforms, who wish to operate in the rest of the world like they're used to doing in the US (namely, outside any controls).
They're wrong, even if the European regulatory model still needs to be improved.
***
RADICAL CHANGE
For people of my and later generations what is happening in global politics cannot but be felt like an earthquake comparable to when the Berlin Wall was destroyed and the Soviet Union collapsed. Only this time, it's happening on the Western side.
For all our lives, the Western bloc run by the US out of NATO always seemed quite compact and in recent years, quite determined to expand towards the east of Europe. But now it is the US which is declaring that's enough. It seems like America is preparing to take a big step out of NATO. The Europeans hardly appear to have a viable response to this development.
For long, French leaders insisted that Europe should hold on to its autonomy in defence matters. It had to be completely independent of the US. But if it's going to do this now, against the background of the war in Ukraine: Does it have sufficient resources? Enough time?
***
BANK SERVICES
The impression that banks do their best to keep distant as much as they can from direct person-to-person contact with their clients continues to prevail. Their "excuse" is that clients can get much better, much faster service by going digital. And those who do not use digital services can still easily make appointments to get service from cashiers on bank premises.
In reality, bank branches continue to be pared down. Across all of Europe, banks are letting current payments be administered by systems managed by new agencies which (up to now) have specialised in delivering payments. Meanwhile, service from ATMs is becoming increasingly mediocre and run down. The queues of people wishing to speak to cashiers lengthen. Small depositiors are exploited in the rates of interest that are being attached to their savings. Meanwhile, banks increase the commission charges for services they deliver, at the expense obviously of those who need those services. For how long is this story going to run?