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?
This will go down just like the the telecoms and the FCC.
An agency will be established to oversee these businesses.
These businesses will place a revolving door between them and the regulators.
These businesses will use that revolving door to bribe and encourage regulators to write regulations is such a way that it looks good to regular voters, but actually help keep the big players entrenched.
Why else do you think these "regulations" are being asked for by the very players that will be regulated by them?
At first the regulations will look good... then they will fail... because they will be designed to fail and because the regulators are going to be lax on enforcement because it benefits them to not enforce them. Why? Because once they fail, voters are going to ask for more regulation. This gives regulators more reason to regulate and more reason to increase the speed of that revolving door and the amount of campaign donations.
Meanwhile... all of the voters that cheered for these regulations will not be saved one single iota of trouble. They will still be tracked, data mined, and treated like a product.
the only thing these regulations are going to do is grant these business government favor when the regulators "decided" that tracking you is justifiable just to do business.
another potential side effect may be licensing... as in business must seek licenses to operate, like radio stations and broadcasters. You see... why shouldn't they? The funds from these licenses will go toward paying for the agency. And of course... this will raise the barrier of entry into the market, which is what these businesses want. Why? Because once they can make it harder for competition to spring up, the more they can abuse YOU without fear!
the results will be, browsers will be required to do everything a website says, including obey DRM, run scripts to access your computer, and able to run Ads whether you like them or not. It might even become that running "illegal browsers" will become a thing, and yes, just like people in jail for fucking jaywalking and joints people will be in jail for using illegal browsers.
You already do not own your own cell phones, your carrier do, and now you will find even less control over how you consume the internet because you are going to be forced to use only "regulator approved" services and browsers.
This will not happen all at once. It will slowly happen over time, perhaps even after some of you are already long dead, but happen it will. Just like how no one wants to say that a suspected pedo has rights out of fear of people saying they are also supporting pedo's instead of supporting due process. Under the guise of regulation, you will continue to lose even more freedom as it is traded in for temporary safety.
And if you trade liberty for safety, you deserve neither.
Congress causes more damage daily than big tech ever does.
Congress makes up regulations for everyone else but leaves their ethics, their money-hungry lobbyist-coddling law-violating selves free to do more damage.
We have a rogue president, a senate leader that sold his soul for the right to bring the Supreme Court forward to 1972, and a "leader" of the representatives all of whom needs strict ethics rules and regulations.
So, Mr. Sanders, you have 20 proposals to regulate ANY INDUSTRY OTHER THAN YOUR OWN. I say no, time to start passing rules to restrict congress from being corrupt and the president from being a nutcase.
E
Sure, leave it to Democrats to further entrench the Fascism. How about a No, eh? Leave them — along with their stockholders — to pursue happiness the way they please, uhm? Can we do that?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nonsense. "Free markets" don't exist, first of all, and unencumbered commercial behavior is anathema to democracy.
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.
Did you grow up somewhere that history is not taught?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Like those chakra alignment idiots? Or homeopathic idiots? Or the anti vax idiots? Or the flat earth idiots?
Shall we then also smile and nod when the holocaust deniers speak up?
How long until the 9/11 deniers also chime in?
That's what the "freedom to believe whatever you want" looks like
Remember, the Internet is a globally available source of information, as well as a globally available source of disinformation. Some people might want to disagree with the words 'globally available', while others will instead want to disagree about there being a globe at all
Abundant upload / download at high speed is what has allowed there to be a platform where one can spread idiocy in video form, making it even more accessible to those members of society who are too lazy to read, and hence are even less informed
Sure, it would be great to live in a world where one could spread whatever info they wanted and the general populace is smart enough to figure out what's right or wrong, but we don't live in that world.
We live in a world of fucking imbeciles who get out of a moving car they're supposed to be driving, to record themselves dancing to a shit song
So you're saying all dissent news sources will be libelled with a "published by a bot" badge? But this smear campaign will backfire, when the masses quickly realize that only semi-official fake news is exempt from the libelous badge?
Well, you just gave yourself all the answer you need. History is taught by the victors.
The oligarchs are the victors. They're the ones teaching you that "free markets" and "less regulation" are a good thing. You have been lied to.
I'm guessing you're on the young side. It probably hasn't been that many years since you read Ayn Rand and thought she was profound. You have been well-indoctrinated by the people with the power and wealth. A day will come when you question what you've been told. Whether you decide to find answers to those questions or stay in your stall in the slaughter house is entirely up to you.
You are welcome on my lawn.