The entire article is written from a false premise.
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."
.... This is about government finding a way to regulate speech, ...
No, this is about finding a way regulate false and misleading speech that is being used to damage the country, its democracy and its people.
We need to defend ourselves against these attacks.
The government has no right to regulate false and misleading speech. False and misleading speech is protected, just as most "hate speech" is. And there you go again with framing people's social media opinions as an "attack on democracy." I guess you think Jan 6th was worse than 9/11, too.
The horrific attacks of September 11th were executed by a foreign enemy. The attack on the White House on January 6th was executed by the citizenry.
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.
The US government regulate speech, all the time.
One can not exercise one's free speech rights by setting up a microphone and amplifier on a residential street corner, at 3 in the morning.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights on a public train or bus, in front of a captive audience.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights at an airport terminal or bus stop, as they are not considered public forums.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights by protesting within a certain distance of a public school, that is in session.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights by blocking traffic or not allowing pedestrians to pass by on public sidewalks.
Commercial speech, whose purpose is to solicit funds from the listeners, are highly regulated by the government.
But, were not talking about just "speech" here. We are talking about "protected speech". And GeorgeBMac and some others are not talking about "regulating". They want the government to "censor". They want the government to stop people from saying what they don't like hearing. They would never be satisfy with the government "regulating" the speech that they don't want to hear, to something like ..... only on social media with less than 100K followers, between midnight and 6AM and only from Monday to Thursday. That is not what they mean they say that government should "regulate" such speech.
So now it becomes not ...... "To your point on the government not having the right to regulate speech ...." but more like ...... To your point on the government not having the right to censor protected speech.... .
Both the former and latter are not difficult to answer. Yes, the government have the right to regulate speech. And No, the government has no right to censor protected speech.
The framers of the US Constitution did not write the 1st Amendment to protect the majority and popular views or opinions. Whether we're a democracy or republic, those views don't need government protection. The 1st Amendment is there to protect the minority and unpopular views or opinions.
The entire article is written from a false premise.
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."
.... This is about government finding a way to regulate speech, ...
No, this is about finding a way regulate false and misleading speech that is being used to damage the country, its democracy and its people.
We need to defend ourselves against these attacks.
The government has no right to regulate false and misleading speech. False and misleading speech is protected, just as most "hate speech" is. And there you go again with framing people's social media opinions as an "attack on democracy." I guess you think Jan 6th was worse than 9/11, too.
The horrific attacks of September 11th were executed by a foreign enemy. The attack on the White House on January 6th was executed by the citizenry.
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.
The US government regulate speech, all the time.
One can not exercise one's free speech rights by setting up a microphone and amplifier on a residential street corner, at 3 in the morning.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights on a public train or bus, in front of a captive audience.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights at an airport terminal or bus stop, as they are not considered public forums.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights by protesting within a certain distance of a public school, that is in session.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights by blocking traffic or not allowing pedestrians to pass by on public sidewalks.
Commercial speech, whose purpose is to solicit funds from the listeners, are highly regulated by the government.
But, were not talking about just "speech" here. We are talking about "protected speech". And GeorgeBMac and some others are not talking about "regulating". They want the government to "censor". They want the government to stop people from saying what they don't like hearing. They would never be satisfy with the government "regulating" the speech that they don't want to hear, to something like ..... only on social media with less than 100K followers, between midnight and 6AM and only from Monday to Thursday. That is not what they mean they say that government should "regulate" such speech.
So now it becomes not ...... "To your point on the government not having the right to regulate speech ...." but more like ...... To your point on the government not having the right to censor protected speech.... .
Both the former and latter are not difficult to answer. Yes, the government have the right to regulate speech. And No, the government has no right to censor protected speech.
The framers of the US Constitution did not write the 1st Amendment to protect the majority and popular views or opinions. Whether we're a democracy or republic, those views don't need government protection. The 1st Amendment is there to protect the minority and unpopular views or opinions.
Wrong!
It has nothing to do with "liking" or "agreeing" with what is said.
It has everything to do with intentional disinformation endangering the country, its democracy and its people.
Professional Russian propagandists opened that door in 2016 to install their candidate at the head of our government. Since then it has morphed in several directions and been picked up and expanded on by domestic terrorists and has culminated in thousands dying needlessly from misinformation spread about COVID as well as the BigLie that is being propagated in order to undermine our democracy by interfering in our next election -- just as disinformation was used to do the same in 2016.
It is a shame that despicable creatures are using the freedoms of our democracy to undermine our democracy -- just as Hitler did in the 1930's.
The problem we face is NOT the tyranny of the majority but the tyranny of a vocal minority using the megaphone of Social media and other platforms to spread their propaganda and disinformation while hiding behind "free speech" protections.
Just as our founders never anticipated a single person with an AR-15 could mow down dozens of children in minutes, they never anticipated that a vocal minority could (mis)use 21st century technology to undermine the democracy they established.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
He told you, it was hypocritical.
At the same time you wrote "Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party", in actual fact you're advocating for something you yourself don't practice and seem unwilling to commit to. Unless you find that to be proper and logical then that's the problem you're asking about.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
He told you, it was hypocritical.
At the same time you wrote "Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party", in actual fact you're advocating for something you yourself don't practice and seem unwilling to commit to. Unless you find that to be proper and logical then that's the problem you're asking about.
Nope! As I said, I simply responded in kind -- fighting fire with fire.
But again, nice try at trolling. Keep practicing. You'll get better I'm sure.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
Because it is partisan bickering...the very thing you're claiming you want to avoid? His comment was accurate. Joe Biden did order an airstrike that ended up killing 7 kids. And Big Tech is certainly doing things better than the government.
But your comment? It was simply a knee-jerk, partisan and inaccurate one. Blaming the former president for every pandemic death is laughably absurd. The reality is that we have a likely engineered virus that probably leaked from the Wuhan lab. China covered it up. Everyone in the U.S. was slow to respond. You can include Orange Man in there, though he objectively was on of fastest and most effective, policy-wise. His problem, at least in my view, was that we as a nation didn't need to see him mud wrestling Jim Acosta every day and going on Twitter rants.
If you're going to respond in kind, I might suggest you at least keep it factual.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
He told you, it was hypocritical.
At the same time you wrote "Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party", in actual fact you're advocating for something you yourself don't practice and seem unwilling to commit to. Unless you find that to be proper and logical then that's the problem you're asking about.
Nope! As I said, I simply responded in kind -- fighting fire with fire.
But again, nice try at trolling. Keep practicing. You'll get better I'm sure.
Again you're proving my point George.
Replying in kind only adds to the fire and does nothing to quash it. You frequently frame insults in political terms, "China hater", "Trumper" et.al, and obviously think that's a logical and proper way to talk with each other, name-calling and political dismissiveness. If you truly had interest in making the US stronger as you occasionally say, you would not serve yourself up as BEING the problem in a microcosm. You seriously can't see how you add to the discord rather than help heal it? By your own words, you come off as the epitome of hypocrisy.
IMO, if you want others to fix themselves then start with your own attitudes and comments. Lead by example. You be you George, but strive to be a better and more healing George, the type of person you want others to be and not the kind you make fun of.
Now I'm on to better things.
So to get the thread on topic, I think that by the time a dozen EU countries some to a pseudo-agreement on how to proceed the "problem' will have either rectified itself in large part, or grown so huge that it is no longer controllable. Just look how many years other investigations have taken, and the years of back and forth on proposed solutions? I'll predict that 5 years for now there will be very little in the way of actual practice changes.
The big techs will offer little fig leaves, a couple of peace offerings, roll out the PR troops, imply that big changes are underway and "gosh we planned it all along", when in fact it's nothing meaningful at all, only the minimum they believe will push the cart further down the road.
Impugn the integrity of the process, work the politicians, and call on the anointed masses of tech fans for support works.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
Because it is partisan bickering...the very thing you're claiming you want to avoid? His comment was accurate. Joe Biden did order an airstrike that ended up killing 7 kids. And Big Tech is certainly doing things better than the government.
But your comment? It was simply a knee-jerk, partisan and inaccurate one. Blaming the former president for every pandemic death is laughably absurd. The reality is that we have a likely engineered virus that probably leaked from the Wuhan lab. China covered it up. Everyone in the U.S. was slow to respond. You can include Orange Man in there, though he objectively was on of fastest and most effective, policy-wise. His problem, at least in my view, was that we as a nation didn't need to see him mud wrestling Jim Acosta every day and going on Twitter rants.
If you're going to respond in kind, I might suggest you at least keep it factual.
So it's OK for some crazed right winger to attack our Democratic president. But when someone criticizes your Republican leader you get your panties all in a bunch.
Then you double down by repeating his crazed conspiracy theories and try to defend his absolute total incompetence with bullshit.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
He told you, it was hypocritical.
At the same time you wrote "Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party", in actual fact you're advocating for something you yourself don't practice and seem unwilling to commit to. Unless you find that to be proper and logical then that's the problem you're asking about.
Nope! As I said, I simply responded in kind -- fighting fire with fire.
But again, nice try at trolling. Keep practicing. You'll get better I'm sure.
Again you're proving my point George.
Replying in kind only adds to the fire and does nothing to quash it....
LOL... Your trolling is getting worse, not better.
Maybe you should sign up for some lessons?
But, explain to me how ignoring right wing smears, propaganda and misinformation makes it go away.
To you, smearing a Democratic president is normal and acceptable. But say anything about a Republican and you declare war.
But, since you have no truth or logic to stand on, you resort to trolling. Bad trolling, but you do your best.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
He told you, it was hypocritical.
At the same time you wrote "Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party", in actual fact you're advocating for something you yourself don't practice and seem unwilling to commit to. Unless you find that to be proper and logical then that's the problem you're asking about.
Nope! As I said, I simply responded in kind -- fighting fire with fire.
But again, nice try at trolling. Keep practicing. You'll get better I'm sure.
Again you're proving my point George.
Replying in kind only adds to the fire and does nothing to quash it....
LOL... Your trolling is getting worse, not better.
Maybe you should sign up for some lessons?
But, explain to me how ignoring right wing smears, propaganda and misinformation makes it go away.
To you, smearing a Democratic president is normal and acceptable. But say anything about a Republican and you declare war.
But, since you have no truth or logic to stand on, you resort to trolling. Bad trolling, but you do your best.
You again prove my points George, eminently so. What did you feel you just accomplished? There was no attempt at reasoning, no explanation for why you believe your viewpoints should be considered, no logic in the arguments, and lacking all of that no minds were changed. There was not even the pretention of respect for another member, so you weren't inviting honest discussion. That's all that partisan bickering, such as you've put on display far too often IMHO, accomplishes.... Nothing. In fact it's counter-productive, hardening the line between us and them. Why would you play into exactly what those behind the scenes power-brokers want you to do?
IMO that's a major reason why the US in recent years has seemed frozen in place, unable to arrive at consensus on improving our economy, infrastructure, and education. We don't talk to each other as rational human beings. We yell at each other with eyes and ears closed. Why would you promote that George?
If you put more effort into talking with me instead of talking TO me you'd be further ahead and maybe you could change some minds, and that goes doubly for those in our country who command attention.
That extends to the efforts to figure out if and why Big Tech needs to have some external controls put in place. Unless all sides begin talking WITH each other, and that means listening not just speaking, instead of talking AT each other there won't be effective legislation that does what is required and no more. Some backroom deal that benefits the few is the best we can expect.
When we have a current government under joe Biden that bombs 7 little kids and tell people the kids were ISIS leaders, I would just say please leave google and Apple alone!
they are doing things right much better than you moron politicians
Yeh, 7 kids died. Why are you not outraged at the 700,000 Americans his predecessor killed?
Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party.
His comment was off topic, partisan and somewhat gratuitous (though, accurate). Yours is ridiculous and hypocritical. First you claim that Orange Man "killed" 700,000 people. In the next sentence, you complain about partisan politics tearing down the enemy above all else.
Just responding in kind. Why do you have a problem with that?
He told you, it was hypocritical.
At the same time you wrote "Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party", in actual fact you're advocating for something you yourself don't practice and seem unwilling to commit to. Unless you find that to be proper and logical then that's the problem you're asking about.
Nope! As I said, I simply responded in kind -- fighting fire with fire.
But again, nice try at trolling. Keep practicing. You'll get better I'm sure.
Again you're proving my point George.
Replying in kind only adds to the fire and does nothing to quash it....
LOL... Your trolling is getting worse, not better.
Maybe you should sign up for some lessons?
But, explain to me how ignoring right wing smears, propaganda and misinformation makes it go away.
To you, smearing a Democratic president is normal and acceptable. But say anything about a Republican and you declare war.
But, since you have no truth or logic to stand on, you resort to trolling. Bad trolling, but you do your best.
You again prove my points George, eminently so. What did you feel you just accomplished? ...
What did I accomplish? I challenged another crazed right winger trying to spread his lies, propaganda and smears. I have said that a couple times now.
But, you're so busy trolling, you seem to have missed it.
So, in addition trying to get better at trolling, I'd suggest you try to keep up.
I won't say that ‘big tech are different each other’ o ‘all are the same’… but for me there is a big difference between a big tech as Apple —as an example— that you pay $1,000- for the device… and a big tech as Facebook/Google/etc. that just ‘take your privacy and data as payment’ —and yes, we ‘also decide to use them’—.
Yes and no.... in the privacy aspect sure although only cause Apple failed in the ad and social media markets. Let's not forget Apple launched products in both spaces, they just happened to fail. But they certainly lobby for other toxic elements such as anti-competitive tactics in the app store, the fighting of right to repair. You could also make a pretty strong argument about the addictive nature of there products (there is a reason for those little red icons among others) but no one seems ready for that conversation yet.
Interesting point, one I hadn't ever thought about. Had Apple been making billions with iAd or with their own social platform would they have approached the privacy discussion differently?
Comments
One can not exercise one's free speech rights by setting up a microphone and amplifier on a residential street corner, at 3 in the morning.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights on a public train or bus, in front of a captive audience.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights at an airport terminal or bus stop, as they are not considered public forums.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights by protesting within a certain distance of a public school, that is in session.
Nor can one exercise one's free speech rights by blocking traffic or not allowing pedestrians to pass by on public sidewalks.
Commercial speech, whose purpose is to solicit funds from the listeners, are highly regulated by the government.
But, were not talking about just "speech" here. We are talking about "protected speech". And GeorgeBMac and some others are not talking about "regulating". They want the government to "censor". They want the government to stop people from saying what they don't like hearing. They would never be satisfy with the government "regulating" the speech that they don't want to hear, to something like ..... only on social media with less than 100K followers, between midnight and 6AM and only from Monday to Thursday. That is not what they mean they say that government should "regulate" such speech.
So now it becomes not ...... "To your point on the government not having the right to regulate speech ...." but more like ...... To your point on the government not having the right to censor protected speech.... .
Both the former and latter are not difficult to answer. Yes, the government have the right to regulate speech. And No, the government has no right to censor protected speech.
The framers of the US Constitution did not write the 1st Amendment to protect the majority and popular views or opinions. Whether we're a democracy or republic, those views don't need government protection. The 1st Amendment is there to protect the minority and unpopular views or opinions.
At the same time you wrote "Oh yeh, partisan politics that is not focused on making the country better but on attacking and tearing down "the enemy" -- the opposite American political party", in actual fact you're advocating for something you yourself don't practice and seem unwilling to commit to. Unless you find that to be proper and logical then that's the problem you're asking about.
Because it is partisan bickering...the very thing you're claiming you want to avoid? His comment was accurate. Joe Biden did order an airstrike that ended up killing 7 kids. And Big Tech is certainly doing things better than the government.
But your comment? It was simply a knee-jerk, partisan and inaccurate one. Blaming the former president for every pandemic death is laughably absurd. The reality is that we have a likely engineered virus that probably leaked from the Wuhan lab. China covered it up. Everyone in the U.S. was slow to respond. You can include Orange Man in there, though he objectively was on of fastest and most effective, policy-wise. His problem, at least in my view, was that we as a nation didn't need to see him mud wrestling Jim Acosta every day and going on Twitter rants.
If you're going to respond in kind, I might suggest you at least keep it factual.
Replying in kind only adds to the fire and does nothing to quash it. You frequently frame insults in political terms, "China hater", "Trumper" et.al, and obviously think that's a logical and proper way to talk with each other, name-calling and political dismissiveness. If you truly had interest in making the US stronger as you occasionally say, you would not serve yourself up as BEING the problem in a microcosm. You seriously can't see how you add to the discord rather than help heal it? By your own words, you come off as the epitome of hypocrisy.
IMO, if you want others to fix themselves then start with your own attitudes and comments. Lead by example. You be you George, but strive to be a better and more healing George, the type of person you want others to be and not the kind you make fun of.
Now I'm on to better things.
So to get the thread on topic, I think that by the time a dozen EU countries some to a pseudo-agreement on how to proceed the "problem' will have either rectified itself in large part, or grown so huge that it is no longer controllable. Just look how many years other investigations have taken, and the years of back and forth on proposed solutions? I'll predict that 5 years for now there will be very little in the way of actual practice changes.
The big techs will offer little fig leaves, a couple of peace offerings, roll out the PR troops, imply that big changes are underway and "gosh we planned it all along", when in fact it's nothing meaningful at all, only the minimum they believe will push the cart further down the road.
Impugn the integrity of the process, work the politicians, and call on the anointed masses of tech fans for support works.
IMO that's a major reason why the US in recent years has seemed frozen in place, unable to arrive at consensus on improving our economy, infrastructure, and education. We don't talk to each other as rational human beings. We yell at each other with eyes and ears closed. Why would you promote that George?
If you put more effort into talking with me instead of talking TO me you'd be further ahead and maybe you could change some minds, and that goes doubly for those in our country who command attention.
That extends to the efforts to figure out if and why Big Tech needs to have some external controls put in place. Unless all sides begin talking WITH each other, and that means listening not just speaking, instead of talking AT each other there won't be effective legislation that does what is required and no more. Some backroom deal that benefits the few is the best we can expect.