Speech of Martijn Snoep given at cultural center De Balie in Amsterdam on Tuesday 16 September 2025

Good morning everyone,

In normal political times, the Dutch cabinet’s draft budget for the upcoming calendar year contains tough decisions regarding pressing matters. However, these are not normal political times in the Netherlands, so my expectations for this round aren’t too high.

That’s why I’ve decided to talk about two long-term and more-abstract trends that touch on the economy and society as the main topics of my introduction today. These trends also touch on ACM’s mission, which is ensuring that markets work well for all people and businesses, now and in the future.

These two trends are not positive, but we, as a society, are not sitting powerless on the sidelines, either. Choices can be made, albeit difficult ones, and I’m calling on everyone today to consider those choices.

The two trends I would like to talk about are:

1. The increasing influence of power, and the waning influence of rules; and
2. The increasing manipulation of the already shaky ‘free will’ of people.

Power v. rules

The increasing influence of power and the waning influence of rules can be seen at various levels:

First of all between countries. The UN Charter is very clear: the sovereignty of member states must be respected. Granted, Russia is not the first UN member state to invade another UN member state without justification, but this demonstration of ‘power over rules’ is unique in its geographic proximity and lack of concealment.

We see this increasing influence of power at the level of international trade also. The Trump administration makes it perfectly clear: the rules-based order that was cherished for decades as well as the dispute settlement procedures of the World Trade Organization have become irrelevant. It’s now the law of the strongest: economic and military strength that is.

Finally, we are seeing these new dynamics play out in the relationships between powerful non-European businesses and the EU too: in that context, take another look at the recently held meeting between the CEOs of the leading Big Tech companies and US President Trump. Those CEOs lavished praise on the president. They are seeking, and are getting, political cover for opposing rules that try to curb their power in the rest of the world. In return, they, too, will become instruments of power that the US government can wield.

We are thus likely to see more and more often big companies ignoring democratically established rules or openly trying to use every delay tactic in the book. And we are also likely to see more and more often European governments becoming hesitant about taking action against this conduct out of concern for their economic and military positions. A perfect example of ‘power’ and the ‘threat of power’ over rules.

A country like the Netherlands is particularly vulnerable to such dynamics. As a relatively small and open economy, without any military power, it benefits from peace and free trade based on predetermined rules. Therefore, it’s no wonder that, in the Netherlands, there is a long tradition of studying and developing international law and international trade law.

However, it’s difficult for a country, regulator, or Dutch company to defend yourself against someone who decides not to play in accordance with the agreed upon rules anymore. It’s as if, during a football match, one team decides to just pick up the ball and ignore the referee, who is, unsurprisingly, blowing on their whistle hard, and drawing cards left and right. In such a scenario, what do you do as the opposing team? Do you put your heads down and continue playing in accordance with the rules? Or do you walk off the pitch, or (another option) do you also pick up the ball yourself? You have a choice there.

In order to protect ourselves against the increasing exercise of power by companies, a real-world strategy is needed, one that combines elements of all three options. I will explain this further now.

Put your heads down and continue playing

History has shown us that nothing is forever. At some point, dynamics will change again, and people yearn for a rules-based balance of power, regardless on what level. So let’s not forget to put our heads down and continue playing in accordance with the rules, and, in any case, make sure it doesn’t get any worse.

We can do the latter by, among other actions, continue assessing mergers rigorously in order to prevent new powerful companies from emerging. Merger control is a powerful weapon because it’s very difficult for companies to ignore it. The current rules in merger control in the Netherlands still have a few gaps that need to be filled soon. In addition, let us arm ourselves against an ever-growing lobby of companies that see an opportunity in the current dynamics and think they can be assessed less rigorously. It’s only logical that businesses look out for their own interests as well as for those of their shareholders, and not for the public interest.

Walk off the pitch

You can also walk off the pitch. The team that picks up the ball with their hands wishes to continue to play the game. However, you need two teams to play. Walking off the pitch can therefore be a powerful tool. The economic equivalent of walking off the pitch is simply to stop buying products or services from the other. A strong weapon against the power of companies is a buyer boycott. Gandhi’s boycott of fabrics produced in England made from Indian cotton is an inspiring example in its simplicity.

Such a boycott obviously doesn’t work overnight, since good alternatives often aren’t available yet. That’s why those businesses became so powerful in the first place. Countries and buyers must therefore develop alternatives in order to be able to walk off the pitch, even if those alternatives are initially of lesser quality. With regard to Big Tech, it means that EU alternatives need to be created for the most crucial IT services with great urgency. The European Commission and national governments must fully support such efforts. That also applies to ACM, and we intend to do so.

Having complete digital sovereignty is impossible, but having more autonomy than today would already be a significant improvement. In that context, cloud services and applications for professional use should be prioritized. European social media would be very welcome, but if we had to choose, we should start with a European cloud and European alternatives to essential office software such as software for word processing and document storage, mailing, and spreadsheets. Without such software, we would simply not be able to do anything anymore to keep our societies running. As a major buyer, the government must be the driving force for society in that regard, just as crucial private companies must be for the economy. Think of banks and insurers. Sector-specific regulators can therefore also play a role in this regard. However, it’s crucial that we don’t create any new, similar dependencies. Scale is important, but exchanging dependence on a few US companies for dependence on a European company is only marginally better.

Picking up the ball ourselves

Finally, there’s the option of picking up the ball ourselves, and, just like the opposing team, not following the rules. This is a very dangerous strategy, because the next step could be that the opposing team will not only hold the ball with their hands, but will also start hitting. After all, rules have gone out the window anyway. You’ll soon end up in an even worse situation. However, completely ruling out this option would be unwise either. A cautious choice is thus called for, one that should support the other two options: putting your heads down and continue playing, and walking off the pitch.

For example, think of organizing government tender processes in such a way that the development of EU alternatives is promoted with an eye to national security, or of protecting the developing European IT industry against competition. All of these options are not ideal if everyone was playing by the rules, but perhaps the least bad options if that’s not the case.

My conclusion so far

In a nutshell, in the economy, power has become more important, and rules have become less important. This should be lamented, and not just because it spells bad news for regulators and lawyers. At the same time, it’s useless to start whining in a corner and yearn for a certain time in the past (which was a very short-lived period by the way) when things were still different. It is what it is, and we need to learn how to live with this new reality by making choices on the basis of a combination of putting our heads down and continue playing, walking off the pitch, and picking up the ball ourselves.

‘Free will’ under pressure

We then get to the second trend that I mentioned at the beginning of my story, which is the increasing manipulation of ‘free will’. Many economic models and government interventions are based on the assumption that humans are rational actors that are well-informed and make conscious decisions freely, and are therefore responsible for their own choices. I don’t mean to reopen the age-old philosophical debate on whether or not ‘free will’ exists, and if so, to what extent.

What I do want to touch upon is that those choices are becoming less and less free or, more accurately, threaten to be manipulated even more effectively by third parties. The cause behind that lies in the digital revolution that we are currently witnessing, and which makes it possible to use better and better, empirically tested manipulation methods that are geared towards ever smaller groups of similar people.

Let’s take one step back. Manipulation of ‘free will’ is as old as the hills. Demagogues, cult leaders, and market vendors have known for centuries (on the basis of intuition and tradition) how to manipulate groups of people. However, there are three new developments that have enhanced their influence.

First of all, digital technologies make it possible to test on a larger scale what works with people and what not. Large digital companies continuously conduct A/B tests to see what changes will lead to more sales or attention. Social-media firms permanently follow what posts can keep people’s attention longer or can lead to more engagement than other posts, and subsequently adjust their distribution algorithms accordingly.

Second, digital technologies and social media have also made it easier to compile specific, smaller target audiences, which are subsequently targeted using a battle-tested manipulation strategy that has been geared towards that target audience. The company that does this best wins first prize in the attention economy. And it works. Who of you hasn’t caught yourself doomscrolling for way too long?

Third, AI speeds up both trends exponentially since the faster such tests can be set up, the faster it can be discovered what works and what not, the faster the manipulation strategy can be implemented, and the faster this can be used on an ever smaller target audience. In that process, human intervention fades into the background.

On top of that, AI makes it even more difficult to tell the difference between fact and fiction, as a result of which manipulation not only takes place through the distribution of facts, and but also through the manipulation of those same facts.

As a result of large-scale data analysis, small target audiences, as well as AI, manipulation of ‘free will’ has become much faster, more precise, and therefore more effective. Let us continue to assume that humans will not be completely reduced to beings fully malleable by algorithms. My argument is about the direction in which this trend is heading, as well as the question of how we deal with this.

Generally speaking, there are three options: regulation, prohibition, and laissez-faire:

Regulation

The knee-jerk response of many lawmakers, regulators, and individuals to any undesirable effect of a product or service is to call for more or better regulation. Prohibiting a product or service is often seen as too paternalistic, and a laissez-faire approach as too anarchistic. Think of the public debate on smoking.

There are many concerns, understandably so, about the addictive techniques of algorithms in the attention economy as well as about clever selling methods that take advantage of restricted choice architectures, artificial scarcity claims, and the fear of missing out (FOMO).

It’s no wonder then that more and more regulation is introduced in the digital domain, which, with the best intentions, seeks to protect people and businesses against large digital companies, but, in essence, against themselves. New laws such as the DMA, DSA, DA, the AI Act, and DFA (in the making) are all attempts to limit the harmful effects for society.

The drawback of regulation is that it requires more rules as well as enforcement thereof, whereas, at the same time, there is a shift from rules towards power. The call for more regulation is therefore at odds with this shift.

A second drawback is that regulation seeks to protect people and businesses against something they really want (or think they really want) and something, generally speaking, they are satisfied with, at least in the short term. As a result, it remains an unequal fight, similar to the fight against smoking, obesity, and drugs.

I’m not saying we should stop conducting oversight or stop regulating, but it’s also good to recognize the limitations thereof.

Prohibition

Prohibition may, at first glance, seem like regulation, yet it’s something completely different. With a prohibition, governments are not trying to limit harmful effects, but simply block certain services entirely from being distributed in their own territories. That is not something we are used to in Europe, and something we only know from countries we would rather not take as an example, but it is an option. It was the case for the US when it was planning to ban TikTok in their own country. Naturally, there will always be ways to circumvent such bans. However, a ban that is supported by a democratic majority can truly work. It is obviously a choice that comes with major drawbacks, but, then again, any choice comes with drawbacks.

I fully understand that a ban is a far-reaching instrument in an open society where its citizens enjoy many freedoms to do things that may not necessarily be in their own interests. However, something greater is at work right now. There seems to be a causal relationship between certain services and negative external effects that are passed on to society. Think of mental-health problems among youth, aggression, and the erosion of fundamental democratic values. I’m not making a case here to ban certain services, yet we should not rule out that option in advance either, but rather consider all alternatives.

In that context, it’d be wise to start with protecting children against those services that are most harmful to them. The paternalistic argument is also the least effective here. In that respect, it’s interesting to keep a close watch on the effects of smartphone bans at schools. That is a light version of prohibition.

Laissez faire

And then there is the other approach: laissez faire. Society and the economy can only be socially engineered so much, and people are good at adapting themselves to new circumstances and self-correct. My parents were concerned about the alleged ‘television addiction’ of my generation. Watching television came with strict rules, otherwise we would all end up in the gutter. Moreover, not all harmful effects can be prevented at the cost of acceptable infringements of freedoms, financial resources, and effort. That requires acceptance that there are limits to what we as humans can do as well as confidence that things will turn out right.

Conclusion

I have described two major trends that also touch on ACM’s mission of ensuring that markets work well for people and businesses, now and in the future: the replacement of rules by power, and the increasing manipulation of free will. However, as I have noted: we, as a society, have a choice of how to respond to these trends. There are different routes to take, especially at the European level. Those routes sometimes contradict each other (prohibition and laissez faire) and require consciously weighing the pros and cons. However, we don’t need to sit powerless on the sidelines. Real choices lie before us. Let us make them together.

Thank you very much.