Slashdot Mirror
Senate Democrat Floats First Serious Proposals For Regulating Big Tech (gizmodo.com)
On Monday, Senator Mark Warner published 20 proposals on how to regulate big tech platforms. What's interesting is that none of the proposals call for breaking up the pseudo-monopolies. Instead, they aim to start a substantive debate by laying out different paths to address problems posed by the platforms. Gizmodo reports: What may be more important than the individual proposals themselves is that the document is at least trying to organize a holistic way of thinking about the issues now on the table. It breaks down the areas that need addressing into the promotion of disinformation, privacy and consumer protection, and ensuring competition in the marketplace. Just to highlight a few of the good issues on the table, the white paper blessedly brings the conversation back to privacy and data ownership -- something that seems to have been lost as the conversation has turned to content moderation. The easiest recommendation is to implement what it calls "GDPR-like" data protection legislation that would give Americans similar data rights as EU citizens gained in May. The jury is still out on the long-term consequences of those reforms, but they require greater transparency and consent for a company's terms of service, along with many more tools for keeping track of what information a company collects on you.
On the competition side of things, the proposal suggests a data-transparency bill that would give users a more granular idea of how their data is being used and how much its worth to an individual platform. One concern it addresses is that platforms expand how they monetize a person's data while the user is often unaware of how much they're actually giving up, value-wise, when they agree to hand over their data in exchange for a particular service. Another benefit would be that regulators would have a better idea of what they're evaluating in antitrust enforcement cases. The proposals relating to disinformation are a little more worrisome. A requirement that platforms "clearly and conspicuously label bots" wouldn't be so bad, but it's a daunting task and opens up the potential for false positives. Likewise, demanding networks identify a user's true identity is unrealistic, and the option of anonymity online should be protected. Axios was first to publish the list of 20 proposals compiled by Warner's staff. Is there a proposal that resonates with you? If not, how would you regulate the Big Tech platforms?
On the competition side of things, the proposal suggests a data-transparency bill that would give users a more granular idea of how their data is being used and how much its worth to an individual platform. One concern it addresses is that platforms expand how they monetize a person's data while the user is often unaware of how much they're actually giving up, value-wise, when they agree to hand over their data in exchange for a particular service. Another benefit would be that regulators would have a better idea of what they're evaluating in antitrust enforcement cases. The proposals relating to disinformation are a little more worrisome. A requirement that platforms "clearly and conspicuously label bots" wouldn't be so bad, but it's a daunting task and opens up the potential for false positives. Likewise, demanding networks identify a user's true identity is unrealistic, and the option of anonymity online should be protected. Axios was first to publish the list of 20 proposals compiled by Warner's staff. Is there a proposal that resonates with you? If not, how would you regulate the Big Tech platforms?
Is this what we can come to expect from an editor?
Take advice from a gentleman who has been embedded in Silicon Valley culture for decades. It is an oligopoly run by a big club of people always high-fiving each other. Everyone's money is forced into the stock market as it's the about the only accessible thing that "grows," and all the people in the Fortune 500 companies take as much off the top as they can get.
What happened to FREE SPEECH.
FAKE NEWS is still FREE SPEECH. First Amendment, BITCHES
... none of the proposals call for breaking up the pseudo-monopolies. Instead, they aim to start a substantive debate by laying out different paths to address problems posed by the platforms.
Let's not propose a solution, let's not propose a method of making a *plan* for a solution, let's propose several plans for how to approach a solution, and have a debate!
Bureaucracy at its finest.
(Futurama quote: "Don't quote me the regulation! I chaired the committee that reviewed the proposal to change the color of the book that regulation is in." --Bureaucrat 1.0)
Fuck off ivan? He has a very valid point. Fuck all this regulation. The best way for a democracy to work is to have a free market of ideas. The day you decide someone has the right to declare info as good or bad on behalf of you, the citizen, is the day you trade your freedoms for the tyrant of a king you just made. Why undo the revolutionary war? Don't you want the freedom to decide who you want to believe rather than have someone make the choice for you? Isn't that your right?
Nonsense. "Free markets" don't exist, first of all, and unencumbered commercial behavior is anathema to democracy.
Um, no. The only thing that encumbers commercial behavior is regulation by the state (bad), and competition (good). It is always better to have options, rather than instructions.
The revolutionary war was not about democracy, it was about exchanging one aristocracy for another. The Founding Fathers were very careful to limit the democratic impulses of Americans and make sure that the wealthy elite, who they believed know better than everyone else, could rule without being encumbered by democracy.
Um, no. They established a democracy, rather than an aristocracy specifically for this reason. Go read Thomas Jefferson. It took almost 100 years for everyone to get the right to vote, but they laid the bedrock of this great civilization. We have the free'est people because we are allowed to express ourselves. There are going to be bad ideas and bad opinions, like the Westborough Baptist Church. That's the price you pay for freedom. It is a price many have and will fight for, and die for.
Did you grow up somewhere that history is not taught?
I was taught history. What does that have to do with anything? Besides, history is taught by the victors. Decide for yourself. Unless you need this Democratic Senator to decide for you. I will be deciding for myself, thanks.
A free exchange of ideas sounds good. But it stops at lies. Journalists and advertisers are not allowed to propagate lies. (Exceptions may apply. And lies by ommission seem to be acceptable.) Now that even news agencies get their info off Twitbook, it is easier than ever to spread lies with impunity.
But there are reasons why lies are not welcome in this marketplace of ideas. We cannot hold everyone publishing on a public forum to the same standard as professional journalists and advertisers, for purely practical reasons.
But do we want this "free marketplace of of ideas" to become an arena about whose lies are less implausible? Then we may just as well forego journalism altogether and go back to church. Or succumb to the brainwashing of "scripted reality" and of "entertainment" shows emulating the presentation styles of news shows.
Um, no. The only thing that encumbers commercial behavior is regulation by the state (bad), and competition (good). It is always better to have options, rather than instructions.
I think you'd best have a look around. Any society and/or economy would do. And even a brief look should suffice. Then you would see that regulation by the state is absolutely essential. The alternative is all the power coalescing in a few commercial interests (bad).
The end point of unrestrained capitalism is a slave class of underlings (if there's even any point in having them alive at all) and a ruling class of capital owners. Regulation is essential to keep capitalism as a useful economic engine for the benefit of everyone.
One obvious example is our shared environment. Without regulation to prevent it, commercial interests would destroy all environmental amenity. "Externalities", they call them.
Without regulation, competition will inevitably turn into a monopoly, or at best an oligopoly with 2-3 players colluding not to compete, as stronger companies gobble up weaker or smaller ones. Once this happens you have no price pressure nor incentive to innovate or expand services.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The Founding Fathers were very careful to limit the democratic impulses of Americans and make sure that the wealthy elite, who they believed know better than everyone else, could rule without being encumbered by democracy.
That's a popular revisionist concept. If it were true, we wouldn't have the bill of rights, the press would be run by the government, no right to bear arms (allow the peasants firearms?!?) certainly no right to trial by jury, and absolutely no fourth amendment protections.
The issue is, because the system doesn't work perfectly, people assume it must be skewed towards the rich. It does allow for rich people to become rich, however, it doesn't enable them to stay rich, which is why you don't see a lot of Vanderbilts, Astors or Carnegies as senators and governors these days.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Not if Google, FB, MS, etc. are who you want to protect your data from.
Your ad here. Ask me how!