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?
"pseudo-monopolies."
What? Perhaps you mean oligopoly?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
There needs to be some serious thought on how to best address data migration and pseudo vendor lock-in. Data migration is easy. I should have the ability to download all my data from facebook and upload it to google plus (or some other competitor) and vice versa.
Pseudo vendor lockin is a bit trickier. If all your friends are on facebook then you can't move to a new platform without convincing all your friends to move too.
I think the solution for this is to require companies to allow interoperability between sites. If I want to create a facebook clone, I should be able to allow my users to sync their account with facebook so that posts on my new site are crossposted on facebook, etc...
There are already some marketing tools that allow this to a limited extent but it should be explicitly allowed so that people can more easily hop from platform to platform.
Currently, trying to do a true sync of facebook with a facebook clone would be against facebook's TOS.
Say hello to universal ID and Zero anonymity on the internet.
I hope you are the first person in court fighting for your life after someone steals your identity and does something illegal with it.
I hear nowadays just being accused of certain crimes destroys your future... no one will even wait until you go to trial to find out if you are innocent... you are automatically guilty... even if you eventually get a "not-guilty" verdict.
Identity theft is about to get a lot worse after someone like you gets a hold of the problem.
And no, data migration is NOT easy. Businesses spend ass loads of money on migrations all year round with many of them either resulting in failures or projects that did manage to finish but are only limping along.
Just talk to a few systems admins and engineers... they will be happy to tell you how broken a lot of shit is.
just think about the problem and it should come to you. But like most other voters, thinking about anything but the next reality TV show is verboten. You just want to hear some smooth sounding politician to say "we go this" right?
Here is just a small reason why it is a bad idea. Once the government can force a business to be interoperable... then all businesses will have to become interoperable. Big businesses with money will quickly increase the complexity of this interoperability so that it will not be easy or cheap for competitors to be interoperable making it easy to squash them and simultaneously raise the barrier of entry. Not only that, but you will become universally tracked by default. Everything about the interoperability will most definitely be used to track everything you do and fed to the government... in case you are a terrorist, or a malcontent that needs to be monitored, or someone that did something bad that can be used against you in a court of law next time you need to fight a custody battle with your spouse or fight off a litigious business or individual.
It might even become bad enough that only certain businesses will be allow even have websites on the internet because before you can be allowed to register, you have to prove that you are "interoperable" before getting a domain.
so Yea, very bad idea...
Sure, leave it to Democrats to further entrench the Fascism.
That's a kind of bullshit definition of fascism, though in fairnes, the link you posted points out how it's a much a Republican thing as democrat. Though given your blind, hyper-partisan zeal it's not really surprising you pick out th eother tribe.
Anyone interested in a better description of facism (not you, since youre impervious to anything that you don't believe is "rah rah republicans") should go here:
https://www.nybooks.com/articl...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
RE: the word "NEWS". I appreciate the hope behind your words, but unfortunately it won't help.
Why?
99.9% of the population doesn't even pay attention to.. anything. Except for the screaming headlines.
I'm the curious sort, and I speak to random people .. people in elevators, on planes, public transport, etc. How else can you find people you'd never normally find, outside of all contact with your social / economic circle?
Do you know how many people don't even know that the government spies on people? That aren't aware of equifax? Of fake news? Of anything you'd read -- anywhere? Or, even know what means?
The vast majority of people are incredibly ignorant of the world around them. The internet hasn't helped, not really, because they only absorb "fun", like links to cat pictures, and people falling down. Nothing wrong with "fun", but if that's all you do.. all you read?
The internet isn't really helping expand intellectual horizons.
Back in the day, a surprising number of people used to think the "National Enquirer" was "news". It was however fake news, left right and centre.
And lastly -- how to do regulate 'news' versus 'fake news' anyhow? How do you ensure that news is 100% scrubbed of political opinion (you can't), and how do you prevent people from showing stories to put pressure on the government or industry?
For example.. let's say you have the government covering something up. OK, you run a news story. You have a little proof, but not really much. Now what? It's fake news, right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?
How do you run stories about tobacco? The industry had tonnes of studies they funded, showing it wasn't harmful. There was no consensus, because decades ago, there wasn't as much collected, studies evidence. So, fake news!
Where's the bar?
You could take pictures/video, and just display them without any comment. Just pictures/video or direct copies of text. That's mostly free of political bias.. or, is it? You have a city in a tornado, and then you find the most unharmed, undevastated portion -- and then just show pictures from here.
See! The tornado wasn't bad at all.. I guess those people don't need help, I won't vote to help them! I won't donate to help them, it's a scam.. there's no damage at ALL!
News is really, really, really, really hard to regulate, if you want to ensure that news can also be used to protect "the people" from political malfeasance and so forth. It needs to be 'unfettered'.
And yes, I agree that current issues with the news are a massive problem.