It could take decades to regulate big tech
The fight between the U.S. government and big tech companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google could take years to progress, with efforts to curtail the activities of the multinational organizations expected to progress at a glacial pace.
Big tech has seen more intense criticism in the last week courtesy of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, in an argument that underlined the need for closer scrutiny of the firms at the top of the tech industry. However, the fight to regulate those companies will be a long and drawn-out affair, with various hurdles in the way of progress.
Framed as a "Big Tobacco moment" by Senator Richard Blumenthal, the leak has prompted for calls for Congress to focus on regulatory measures that impact Facebook and further afield. These ideas include removing some protections from tech companies to penalize the amplification of hateful speech, writes the New York Times, to forcing more disclosure on data usage and algorithms, and even the creation of a new federal agency.
However, the vast funds available to tech companies could be used to fund a giant army of lobbyists to push lawmakers in preferred directions. The reach is already evident, with many privacy bills killed in Congress by such efforts.
In the case of Apple, it was revealed on September 1 that the company spent around $4.1 million on lobbying European Union institutions to fend off antitrust investigations into its business.
Meanwhile, an investigation published on September 8 revealed Apple was "aggressive" in its lobbying tactics to sway opinion in various states, combatting proposed legislation that could've potentially affected the App Store.
According to Harvard professor Allan Brandt, an expert on the history of the tobacco industry's tactics against regulatory measures, Facebook "took a big hit this week, but they are capable of taking many hits just as the tobacco industry was."
Pointing out that it took more than 50 years from when research into the dangers of cigarettes was first published, and ten years after a similar internal documents leak by a whistleblower, before meaningful government regulation was made, Brandt doubts much will happen in the near future.
"There will be regulation for Facebook and other tech companies, but I'm skeptical of a route to successful regulation anytime soon."
The different views of Democrat and Republicans on how to handle speech on tech platforms could also be an impediment, with concerns over the spread of misinformation, privacy, and censorship varying across the aisle. Similar concerns are also made about using antitrust regulation as a means of control, as there's a difference of opinion over competition and if it is the right toolset to use in the first place.
According to Blumenthal, he saw the Facebook documents leak as important, in part due to his previous experience as attorney general of Connecticut suing Big Tobacco in the 1990's. "It was a lightbulb, and all the memories came back of the strategy papers done by tobacco companies on reaching middle schoolers," he offered.
"It was like you could just rearrange the words and substitute it with tobacco," the Senator added, before advising that tech differs from tobacco in that broad legal protections prevent state attorneys general from performing similar legal actions to what happened three decades ago.
Blumenthal seemingly predicted to the report that the change will be slow, stating "This battle won't be fought in the courtroom."
Read on AppleInsider
Big tech has seen more intense criticism in the last week courtesy of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, in an argument that underlined the need for closer scrutiny of the firms at the top of the tech industry. However, the fight to regulate those companies will be a long and drawn-out affair, with various hurdles in the way of progress.
Framed as a "Big Tobacco moment" by Senator Richard Blumenthal, the leak has prompted for calls for Congress to focus on regulatory measures that impact Facebook and further afield. These ideas include removing some protections from tech companies to penalize the amplification of hateful speech, writes the New York Times, to forcing more disclosure on data usage and algorithms, and even the creation of a new federal agency.
However, the vast funds available to tech companies could be used to fund a giant army of lobbyists to push lawmakers in preferred directions. The reach is already evident, with many privacy bills killed in Congress by such efforts.
In the case of Apple, it was revealed on September 1 that the company spent around $4.1 million on lobbying European Union institutions to fend off antitrust investigations into its business.
Meanwhile, an investigation published on September 8 revealed Apple was "aggressive" in its lobbying tactics to sway opinion in various states, combatting proposed legislation that could've potentially affected the App Store.
According to Harvard professor Allan Brandt, an expert on the history of the tobacco industry's tactics against regulatory measures, Facebook "took a big hit this week, but they are capable of taking many hits just as the tobacco industry was."
Pointing out that it took more than 50 years from when research into the dangers of cigarettes was first published, and ten years after a similar internal documents leak by a whistleblower, before meaningful government regulation was made, Brandt doubts much will happen in the near future.
"There will be regulation for Facebook and other tech companies, but I'm skeptical of a route to successful regulation anytime soon."
The different views of Democrat and Republicans on how to handle speech on tech platforms could also be an impediment, with concerns over the spread of misinformation, privacy, and censorship varying across the aisle. Similar concerns are also made about using antitrust regulation as a means of control, as there's a difference of opinion over competition and if it is the right toolset to use in the first place.
According to Blumenthal, he saw the Facebook documents leak as important, in part due to his previous experience as attorney general of Connecticut suing Big Tobacco in the 1990's. "It was a lightbulb, and all the memories came back of the strategy papers done by tobacco companies on reaching middle schoolers," he offered.
"It was like you could just rearrange the words and substitute it with tobacco," the Senator added, before advising that tech differs from tobacco in that broad legal protections prevent state attorneys general from performing similar legal actions to what happened three decades ago.
Blumenthal seemingly predicted to the report that the change will be slow, stating "This battle won't be fought in the courtroom."
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
I'll say it again: Facebook, Twitter et al WANT regulation. One political party, most of the media and Big Tech are all the same monster. They are saying the quiet part out loud now.."the problem isn't that Facebook takes down too many posts, it's that it leaves too many up."
Look at YouTube's recent demonetization of all climate skeptic content. Try to discuss anything other than how great vaccines and masks are at combatting coronavirus. This is about government finding a way to regulate speech, something it needs Big Tech to do. And Blumenthal? He's an absolute moron. Search "Blumenthal Finsta" and see what you find.
The answer is more speech, not less. Make viewpoint discrimination illegal. Prohibit these platforms from restricting speech that is not targeted harassment, inciting illegal activity, violations of the law, etc. Protect children from Big Tech's obvious targeting of them.
"The tech companies have been the economic stars of the last decade, driving an extraordinary process of dynamic change. The Chinese economy would not be where it is now without them. And there is a serious risk in seeking to regulate and tame them, that it curbs their creativity and relentless innovation. That is the danger. But there is an even greater risk in not acting: the creation at the heart of the economy of unbridled monopoly power which discriminates against small and medium-sized enterprises, which privatizes a huge expanse of data that should be at the service of society, and which, through anti-competitive practices, undermines the market and weakens the position of the consumer."
These links consider the question:
Who Knows, Who Decides, and Who Decides Who Decides - LDH Consulting Services
Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism | VPRO Documentary
Is the derivative information more valuable than any hard data collected...?
Does the most verifiable AI come from a trusted ecosystem ?
I am obviously not the deranged one here.
In some ways, I think the latter is worse. I commend the citizens who rose up in force believing that their country was in danger. But I deplore the politicians who abused that zeal and fomented dissent without a factual basis for their claims.
To your point on the government not having the right to regulate speech... that's a difficult one. On the one hand, government should not be able to regulate speech that is critical of itself because that would remove one of the more effective barriers against despotism. On the other hand, the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens - especially those that cannot protect themselves. And for decades there has been research into finding weak spots in the human psyche in order to more effectively persuade people (initially to increase the effectiveness of sales techniques, but more recently to exert population control).
If the warfare is now psychological rather than physical, does that mean government should be prevented from enacting a defense? If speech has been weaponised, isn't there a need for a quick reaction now followed by better education and training to reduce the severity of the problem long term?
It's a tougher decision than it seems at first blush. I'm glad it's not my country.