And also because that action has consequences on the world stage. Deliberately harming one of your ally's largest businesses isn't something I expect will be tolerated indefinitely since it's a diet sanction.
You have the victim/perp relationship mixed up I think. Facebook does harm. They are the perp. The EU data subjects are the victims and the 'world stage' is exactly why this sort of transnational company should adapt to local legislation.
The idea that it 'wouldn't be tolerated' suggests - correct me if I read this wrong - that the country where the company originated would then do some kind of tit-for-tat with companies from the other country. But: where were those comments when VAG and other car manufacturers broke the law in the US? (and probably elsewhere too?). My position hasn't changed, they deserved their comeuppance as much as FB does right now.
It's all about framing. If the US agrees that this is bad actors getting rightfully punished for violating local laws then it's all good. If the US looks at the regulation and decides that it's a very complicated ceremony to extract money from US tech companies then it becomes more complicated. And since FB isn't violating US law and the US passed the cloud act I think that this is relatively likely. This court case is effectively a proxy war over the cloud act because meta didn't actually do anything wrong, their actions became wrong in response to us law.
Yes it does, the reason Meta's actions went from legal to illegal is because US law changed.
Facebook has worked the same way for more than a decade. First EU law changed and it was fine because the US and EU had a data sharing agreement, then US law changed. If you what Meta did wrong is not completely rearchitect Facebook in response to a US/EU squabble then your bar for right and wrong is really really low.
There's a lot of things you can point to that Meta does
that are shady, but they thing they actually got fined for didn't have to do with any of them.
