When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
eyes on the U.S.

A Smarter Way Europe Can Cut Google Down To Size

Yes, the Google 'monster' is too big and too powerful. But EU politicians imposing a breakup of the U.S. tech giant is not the solution. A mix of arm-twisting and open competition can do the trick.

The European Parliament's hemicycle in Strasbourg
The European Parliament's hemicycle in Strasbourg
Johannes Boie


MUNICH — The European Parliament has voted to break up Google, which is about the toughest blow a company can receive. The parliament's watchword seems to be "unbundling," which could mean forbidding Google from linking its products together — for example, telling the company that a Google search could no longer bring up Google Maps. There is also talk of "expropriation."

The vote is not binding, but it does put pressure on the EU Commission, which has been investigating for years whether Google disadvantages its competitors and users, and considering just how hard to move against the company.

The distinction should be made between commission issues and parliamentary decisions, and not just for formal reasons. Commission procedure is a more or less normal bureaucratic process that has seen Google make some changes to its products both to gain ground and to calm adversaries. One example is the Google Shopping page that offers an overview of shopping opportunities: It now lists not just advertisers but also competitors of Google Shopping.

The EU Commission proceedings are still open, and no one knows when or how they will end. But the parliament is trying to force it to make an anti-Google decision before commission investigations have been completed. Emotions risk interfering with the proceedings.

In this debate, the talk is always of the Google monster, the data leech, the monopolist — in short, a company that can only be dealt with by using the harshest means. And that's Google's fault. For decades the company has lacked transparency, particularly with regard to the question of what happens to user data. At the same time, an increasing number of people use Google products because they are effective and simple to use. The otherwise fast-moving company is only slowly introducing functions that will enable its clients to have a little control over their data.

In any case, the parliament members want a quick radical solution: break Google up. But do the actions of the American company really warrant that? On reflection, what would replace the Google search engine? A publicly backed European search engine like the one Google critics are plugging? The result would be a product that doesn't work half as well as Google search, but that would draw a digital line in the transatlantic economic space, marking a step in the direction of blatant protectionism.

But it's not just Google that would suffer. Users would too. The company needs to be dealt with in another way. Commission proceedings have demonstrated that, step by step, Google's arm can be twisted enough for it to make changes. What's more, if Google continues wrecking its own image as it has been doing lately, then more competitors whose values include data protection and transparency are going to surface.

The market is already going that way. Things would be moving faster in Europe if it were as easy to create companies here as it is in the United States. That's a subject the EU could take up with a bit more energy if it really wants to weaken Google. Under pressure from new, innovative competition, other digital giants have been broken up either partially or entirely in a way nobody would have thought possible. Think Myspace and AOL. Google could end up in pieces with no EU intervention at all.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Why Poland's Draconian Anti-Abortion Laws May Get Even Crueler

Poland has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Several parties vying in national elections on Oct. 15 are competing for conservative Catholic voters by promising new laws that could put women's lives at risk.

Photograph of a woman with her lower face covered holding a red lightning bolt - the symbol of the Women's Strike - during the demonstration outside Kaczynski's house.

November 28, 2022, Warsaw, Poland: A protester holds a red lightning bolt - the symbol of the Women's Strike - during the demonstration outside Kaczynski's house.

Attila Husejnow/ZUMA
Katarzyna Skiba


In 2020, Poland was rocked by mass protests when the country’s Constitutional Tribunal declared abortions in the case of severe fetal illness or deformity illegal. This was one of only three exceptions to Poland’s ban on abortions, which now only applies in cases of sexual assault or when the life of the mother is at risk.

Since the 2020 ruling, several women have filed complaints to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) after giving birth to children with severe fetal abnormalities, many of whom do not survive long after birth. One woman working at John Paul II hospital in the Southern Polish town of Nowy Targ told Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza that a patient was forced to give birth to a child suffering from acrania a lethal disorder where infants are born without a skull.

However, even in cases where abortion is technically legal, hospitals and medical professionals in Poland still often refuse to perform the procedure, citing moral objections.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest