European Commission plans “digital omnibus” package to simplify its tech laws

Privacy vs AI and the GDPR

• Several commenters see the “digital omnibus” as sacrificing privacy to fuel AI, pointing to state demands for access to communications, facial recognition on public data, and fears of AI trained on private messages being used for policing or speech control.
• Others argue GDPR is not what’s holding back European AI; US firms operate in Europe under it, and the real blockers are elsewhere (e.g. copyright, capital, scale).
• There’s disagreement over GDPR’s value: some praise it (and DSA/DMA) for real privacy rights and data portability; others say it failed to restrain Big Tech, burdened small businesses, and indirectly pushed everyone onto US hyperscalers.

EU Tech Competitiveness and the “AI Race”

• Some worry the EU is falling behind in AI and tech, fueling brain drain and weak salaries. Others respond that US dominance is largely advertising monopolies and rent-seeking, not “real” tech.
• A recurring view: Europe shouldn’t chase every hype wave; quality of life, healthcare, and education matter more than leading in AI. Being #2–3 is fine.
• Another line of critique: Europe has plenty of niche high‑tech SMEs but few scale-ups; mindset, risk appetite, and easy US capital/IPO markets matter more than regulation alone.

Energy, Climate Policy, and AI

• Multiple comments note that AI competitiveness is constrained by electricity cost; EU power is said to be ~4× US prices.
• Debate centers on whether carbon‑neutral policies necessarily make energy expensive, with examples of nuclear (classified as “carbon neutral”) and rapid Chinese renewables build‑out.
• Some prioritize climate and energy independence over AI leadership; others fear deindustrialization and permanent dependence on foreign “everything.”

Sensitive Data and AI Training

• The proposed exception for processing “special categories” of data (religion, politics, ethnicity, health) alarms some; they see it as enabling propaganda systems or state surveillance infrastructure.
• Others point out these categories are already special under GDPR (in part due to Europe’s history of genocide) and note some legitimate medical use-cases where ethnicity correlates with health risks.

Regulatory Process, Lobbying, and Attrition

• Commenters describe an “attrition game” where the Commission repeatedly proposes intrusive laws (e.g. chat control), forcing civil society to fight each round.
• The institutional setup is criticized: the Commission proposes, the Parliament can’t originate or easily repeal laws, and Big Tech is seen as having effectively captured complex rulemaking.