Bird leaves EU: communication service criticizes regulation
The communications service provider Bird from the Netherlands wants to leave the EU. The CEO rages against regulation.
(Image: lenetstan/Shutterstock.com)
“We are leaving Europe mainly because we lack the environment we need to innovate in an era of AI technology,” Robert Vis, CEO of Bird, told Reuters news agency. However, the criticism from the head of a cloud and communications software company is not really more specific. Bird comes from the Netherlands and wants to be active in New York, San Francisco, Austin, Singapore, Dubai, Istanbul, and Thailand in the future. However, the company intends to continue paying taxes in the Netherlands, and a European office will remain in Lithuania.
Videos by heise
In addition, there will no longer be a home office at these locations; remote working is only possible to bundle expertise around the world, Vis writes in a LinkedIn post. However, the new offices are also intended to better reach local customers.
General criticism of regulations
However, when asked by Reuters, Vis justifies the new locations with the fact that there are “restrictive regulations and difficulties in recruiting qualified technology specialists” in Europe. Exactly which regulations he is referring to remains unclear. Although the AI Act exists in the EU and is now gradually being applied once it comes into force, it is unclear how it affects Bird's technology at all. Vis wrote to Reuters: “We expect the regulations in Europe to block real innovation in a global economy that is rapidly transitioning to AI.” He then shared the Reuters report on LinkedIn, writing: “Europe, stop regulating! We may be the first, but we won't be the last.”
Bird offers software for communication between companies and customers – via email, messenger or video services. According to the company, an associated AI platform is set to change the business processes of entire companies. Of course, this includes AI taking over automation in day-to-day work. Such AI applications, as well as models that are considered general purpose AI, are regulated separately in the AI Act. This involves transparency obligations and certification, for example. Critics see this as too much effort for companies; there are no restrictions, such as bans on GPAI applications. Only AI systems that can be used for social scoring, i.e., the systematic monitoring of citizens, are banned.
(emw)
