Congress Questioned Big Tech CEOs For 5 Hours Without Getting Any Good Answers (engadget.com) 160
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: More than five hours of questioning later, we have learned very little about the state of disinformation from today's marathon hearing with Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai. Democrats pushed the CEOs to answer for their platforms' failing on vaccine misinformation and extremism. Republicans wanted to talk about child safety. Everyone wanted simple "yes" or "no" answers, though few were given. What is clear is that both sides are more than ready to impose new rules on Facebook, Twitter and Google.
The hearing was supposed to be about the platforms' handling of misinformation and extremism. The issue has taken on a new significance during the coronavirus pandemic and in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol. [...] As with other recent hearings, the format made it nearly impossible to extract meaningful answers. Many lawmakers used their allotted five minutes to demand "yes or no" answers, which the executives were reluctant to give. In one particularly memorable exchange, Rep. Anna Eshoo of California was questioning Zuckerberg over Facebook's algorithms when she interrupted him to point out that "we don't do filibuster in the House." "I think it's irritating all of us and that is, no one seems to know the word yes or the word no, which one is it," she said. "Congresswoman, these are nuanced issues, " Zuckerberg said before he was cut off. "Okay, that's a no," she said.
As the hearing dragged on, lawmakers began to repeat themselves. Inevitably, when a new issue or angle was raised -- like when Rep. David McKinley showed Zuckerberg copies of Instagram posts selling prescription pills -- the executives had little time to respond in a meaningful way. The result is that the CEOs' opening statements provided more detail on the issues at hand than anything they were able to say in the five hours that came after them. This, of course, is nothing new. Over the last couple of years, Congress has convened a number of hearings featuring Big Tech executives, and most of them have played out in a similar fashion. But what's increasingly clear is that the both sides of the aisle are eager to impose new regulations on tech platforms.
The hearing was supposed to be about the platforms' handling of misinformation and extremism. The issue has taken on a new significance during the coronavirus pandemic and in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol. [...] As with other recent hearings, the format made it nearly impossible to extract meaningful answers. Many lawmakers used their allotted five minutes to demand "yes or no" answers, which the executives were reluctant to give. In one particularly memorable exchange, Rep. Anna Eshoo of California was questioning Zuckerberg over Facebook's algorithms when she interrupted him to point out that "we don't do filibuster in the House." "I think it's irritating all of us and that is, no one seems to know the word yes or the word no, which one is it," she said. "Congresswoman, these are nuanced issues, " Zuckerberg said before he was cut off. "Okay, that's a no," she said.
As the hearing dragged on, lawmakers began to repeat themselves. Inevitably, when a new issue or angle was raised -- like when Rep. David McKinley showed Zuckerberg copies of Instagram posts selling prescription pills -- the executives had little time to respond in a meaningful way. The result is that the CEOs' opening statements provided more detail on the issues at hand than anything they were able to say in the five hours that came after them. This, of course, is nothing new. Over the last couple of years, Congress has convened a number of hearings featuring Big Tech executives, and most of them have played out in a similar fashion. But what's increasingly clear is that the both sides of the aisle are eager to impose new regulations on tech platforms.
Network Neutrality Our Way (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who say they advocate Network Neutrality seem to also be the ones asking why internet isn't censored the way they want.
Can you give examples? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, um,
Re:Can you give examples? (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the CEOs actually (esp. Jack) delivered the quotable lines of the day:
"I don't think we should be the arbiters of truth and I don't think the government should be either" - Jack Dorsey
Imagine having to actually deliver that line in America, land of the free? We are certainly in the twilight zone. I mean seriously? This is what the leviathan is up to?
That's just standard grandstanding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just so it's clear Some Guy I Dont Know is giving this quote correctly, though the context is the unionisation and possible break up of Amazon which, as a company was attacking her personally with tweets [reuters.com] rather than an attack on the social media platform's ability to share the tweets of the public.
I see that fitting quite well with net neutraility. If a corporation wants to be treated as a "person" then they should be. My tweet as a user starting on Twitter should have the same weight as Amazons and they s
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe -- just maybe -- the Twitter account named after the largest online retailer in the world, and plausibly holding itself out as repairing that company, is already identified as clearly being said on behalf of that company.
But Elizabeth Warren wants to make sure Amazon doesn't have the power to do that.
And you're making excuses for her.
Re: (Score:2)
If a corporation wants to be treated as a "person" then they should be. My tweet as a user starting on Twitter should have the same weight as Amazons and they should not be able to buy their way to greater power by hiring people with greater social media influence.
In a very very general sense, a corporation is actually made up of a group of people working toward the same end. Some work for the company and some are customers of the company, but as a gross generalization, they all want the same thing. Thus any communication from a corporation actually represents the will of many people, while a tweet from yourself represents the will of a single person.
Now the validity of the corporate will is certainly arguable, but that's basically why corporate messages are judged s
Re: (Score:2)
I've got to disagree. I worry about 'who is an "arbiter of truth,"'. But I also worry about "letting obvious and provable falsehoods proliferate, and the resulting damage to all". Gossip was a destructive problem even before the internet appeared and gave it a megaphone. This has made it powerful enough to be even more dangerous than it was when it caused an occasional woman or girl (rarely a man) to be burned as a witch. This damage is generally less intense, but is considerably more widespread. Some
You are muddying the water. (Score:5, Informative)
Network neutrality is about providing equal quality service regardless of where it connects. If you don't like how a site moderates content then you can always go to a new site. However, without network neutrality, your ISP can decide which sites you are allowed to visit.
Do not muddy the water because these are NOT the same issue.
Re: You are muddying the water. (Score:2)
Actually, you pretty much canâ(TM)t switch. The ispâ(TM)s are pretty much a set of cartels with their turf fairly clearly delineated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's... exactly the same situation as the major web sites. I can't move to some arbitrary social networking site and find my friends, family, local organizations, and so forth, at each site where I move.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure you can. If your family thinks you're a racist nazi shitbag and doesn't want to follow you to your "free speech" website of choice, that's not the fault of the site that's telling you to take your fascist racist nazi shitbag shit elsewhere.
Re: You are muddying the water. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the same. You are physically locked into a specific ISP or two. The idea that you're required to use FB, Twitter, or even Google is a mental construct of your own making. If you're not old enough to remember: friends and family existed before social media. And social media existed before the dominant sites now came along.
I can recall only once that an organization I was involved in had their schedule locked behind a Facebook login. Me and a couple of other people without FB accounts brought up the issue and they, not being assholes, were able to accommodate that by making it available elsewhere.
If your friends and family refuse to talk to you outside of a specific social media site, maybe they have a problem. It's a bit like cigarette smoking in terms of social acceptance. A few decades ago, most people did it, but we collectively ended up figuring out life is better without, and no we really don't need it. I might miss out on a few minutes of chit-chat with individuals Y and Z not going on smoke breaks with them anymore, and you know what, that's fine.
It sounds like these friends and family you're referring to have made a decision they'd rather live their lives with "Big Tech". If the site is so terrible, let them know and encourage them to stop. I've been hearing about all kinds of free-speech-focused social media networks popping up lately. Real boom towns by some accounts, and why wouldn't they be? Find one that doesn't engage in whatever your definition of censorship is, and bring your friends in. I'm sure they're all dying to escape the tyranny of Big Tech.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty much exactly the same. If you don't like the rules, make your own platform. Or cloud provider. And maybe your own mobile phone OS, because industry-wide collusion after being pressured by politicians is still a thing in 2021.
Or just build your own ISP. Use TOR, tether a computer to a cell phone, find a VPN, use an HTTPS proxy, or adopt any of a dozen other workarounds. Frankly, it's easier to work around this almost purely imaginary idea of a problematic ISP than to work around the tech ce
Re: (Score:2)
Some years back during a labour dispute, my ISP blocked the unions web site, along with a few hundred others that were hosted at the same place.
Sure people could set a VPN etc, but most people are not very technical and just see the 403 or whatever error and move on.
Due to net neutrality laws here, the courts told my ISP that they had to unblock those sites.
As for choices, there was no reasonable ones, even the library and most open WiFi spots used the same ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfair competition, interference with contractual relations, labor relations laws, and a variety of other torts, laws and regulations seem like adequate basis for forbidding that kind of action. Are you sure net neutrality laws were the reason for it?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not sure and looking now, it may instead of been the reason for net neutrality laws here. Searching 15 year old news it seems to have been as much public pressure at the time though my quick search doesn't really say.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=telu... [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia's page on net neutrality in Canada [wikipedia.org] implies that the laws haven't changed since about 12 years before that event. It's not clear to me whether regulations or enforcement have changed significantly, either.
I have to say that it looks like [archive.org] Telus behaved reasonably in blocking access to that web site -- the site encouraged people to clog the company's resources, and identified workers who crossed the picket line with (according to a court) the intent of harassing and/or intimidating them. Once a cou
Re: (Score:2)
While the argument can be made that it was right to block that one site, there was other 700 sites blocked as collateral damage.
Seems a better method would have been for Telus to ask the courts for an injunction against that web site, including allowance to block it if it was outside of the courts jurisdiction. Pretty sure it would have been granted if true about what you stated.
Remember that free speech is not an absolute right, just something that the government should not be passing laws limiting it. Rea
Re: (Score:2)
If your friends and family refuse to talk to you outside of a specific social media site, maybe they have a problem.
That problem is more serious than you're making it out to be. The name of the problem is "network effect".
If my friends and family refuse to talk outside of Facebook then sure they have a problem. But what about events which are only published on Facebook (like a large portion of the indie live music scene). In that regard unless you want to give up following awesome bands or knowing what your local underground rave is up to you need to go to Facebook. But they are only part of "big tech".
What about WhatsAp
Re: (Score:2)
Some towns only have one grocery store, they have notices about unacceptable behavour. Your choices are behave or have a hard time getting food.
Can't you just behave on these platforms? It's like a bunch of kids bitching that they have to follow rules to use other peoples stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is the grocery stores are the new town farm, where food is only available. They have signs up about expected behaviour and will ban you for disruptive behaviour and you will go hungry or more likely have to use alternatives instead of grocery shopping with your friends, and it is perfectly legal.
Why is Facebook and twitter more important then food?
Re: (Score:2)
The premise is that by default, private businesses can have rules and enforce them. Even if declared essential infrastructure, as ISP's are here, they can still have rules against mal-formed packets and child porn. Your premise seems to be that you should be able to behave as you like on anothers property. Even the town square has limits on behaviour, from possibly being jailed for disturbing the peace to shunned for defending child porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism started out as a far left philosophy. What is weird is how the far right pretends to be for libertarianism.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Left-libertarianism, also known as egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism or social libertarianism, is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality.
And how is this ascii art? References removed to pass the filter
Re: You are muddying the water. (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't move to some arbitrary social networking site and find my friends, family, local organizations, and so forth, at each site where I move.
Sure you can. I'm not on Facebook and I can talk and keep in touch with my friends just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You pretended I wrote something I very specifically did not write.
Do your friends and families email you copies of everything they post on Facebook? My roughly 20 cousins don't. They post it on Facebook, and expect everyone to know from that. Do you even know how people who do use Facebook use it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Facebook is so important, why not just follow their rules? There's a site I use regularly, they have a rule, no politics, so I don't talk politics there.
Even the town square has rules, from disturbing the peace, which can result in prison time, to not bragging about wanting to diddle little kids, which can result in being shunned.
Re: (Score:2)
Because their rules aren't clear, aren't static, and aren't enforced evenly. Unless you are extremely staid, you never know if what you've been doing for years will be named temporarily or permanently based on some policy change. Also because I have no say in their rules, but they respond to Democrats in Congress haranguing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need a clear view of the sky to use it, so for us forest dwellers, it won't work
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is that ... an ISP might zero-rate content it serves directly, but not content from companies where it has to pay interchange fees for the traffic? Please elaborate.
I look forward to hearing exactly how forcing companies to subsidize Netflix is comparable to de-platforming the leader of the free world, or to colluding to ban a competitor based on lies about where rioters coordinated their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=telu... [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Argh! I can't believe I misread your post. Commenting to reverse moderation.
I thought you said the people AGAINST Net Neutrality are now in favor of forcing some sort of fairness doctrine on any tech company that isn't an ISP.
Because we wouldn't want to stifle innovation making sure your ISP will allow you to use whatever site on the internet you might want to.
I have 2 choices for broadband ISPs - The DSL company or the cable company! Someone already stifled competition.
Re: (Score:2)
I want my ISP to be a neutral arbiter of all legal content. I want something better than Twitter and Facebook for average people to connect to. I don't know how to achieve the second.
Re:Network Neutrality Our Way (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose I run your ISP and I notice from traffic analysis that you like to access slashdot on a regular basis. I have my own alternative to slashdot, which is hosted and maintained on my servers and which therefore runs contents and commercials that make me money. I want you to frequent my site, crashbot, and not this weird slashdot site.
So what I do is using IPv6 QoS capabilities on my backbone network to reduce your throughput to slashdot to 1 data packet per
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But let’s see if we can find some common ground, because I think the question you’ve asked is really important. Let’s see if that common ground can be reached if we can find a definition that combines something an ISP could do with censorship, OK?
Would you be willing to agree with me that if I can prevent you from reading/viewing or listening to something, th
Theatrics (Score:2)
Yes or no. Answer! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes or no!
I continue to beat my wife the same number of times I always have.
WARNING: self-contradicting answers may cause SJW outrage and narcissistic moralizing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I apparently live in Soviet Russia because my wife beats me. (ask about that Tantus latex tawse that is one of her favorites)
Hey, it's not t.m.i. if you were the one who brought it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!
The correct answer is "no". I have not stopped beating my wife.
The next step is for the prosecution to demonstrate (or even ask) if I ever beat her in the first place.
I totally get that some/many questions are complicated. If folks were playing fairly, "no but..." would be a reasonable format. Answer the damned question, then expand on the conditions that apply to your answer. Unfortunately, we live in a world of soundbites where the media will air the answer without the explanation, and we live in
The issue fundamentally is one of definition. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the questions, the problem seems to be that nobody can clearly define what they want.
In many ways they want the largest social media platforms to be something they are not. They want the platform to be liable for the content of users, in a way similar to how a news station is liable for the news clips they air. Yet on the flip side, they cannot curtail the speech of individual users. They want advertisements to be general purpose and widely acceptable like television and newspaper ads, yet their business interests / donors want the focused ads which means they include the possibility of illegal discrimination.
They also have to define it in a way to apply to the Google, Facebook, and other largest corporations, to sites like Slashdot, to 4Chan, to news site's comment sections, and also to every tiny website and WordPress site that has a "comment" button.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? No-one owes morons a megaphone. We've seen the consequences, Facebook employs (rewards) only morons. If not censorship, rewarding the worst of humanity needs to stop. We should, at least, censor those who follow the worst people.
Re: (Score:2)
But now you are being Emmanuel Goldstein. Should we revile these 'worst people'? Perhaps post their bitmaps on the screen for periodic short ceremonies of hate?
Re: The issue fundamentally is one of definition. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a great point to be made by those who have megaphones. I think it's a bad point to make by government, in a country where the Constitution insists that the government may not boss around megaphone owners.
You don't want morons to use your megaphone. I completely understand and agree that use of your megaphone should be exclusively your decision.
But what if I want morons (or some morons) to sometimes be able to use my megaphone? That's especially attractive if
Re:The issue fundamentally is one of definition. (Score:4, Interesting)
From the questions, the problem seems to be that nobody can clearly define what they want.
In terms of restriction of speech I can define what I want: Make social media 100% liable for any content they directly promote for cash.
- If your mom posts an antivaxx story, not ideal, but tough that is free speech.
- If your news feed sees a "popular right now" promoted post telling you the COVID vaccine doesn't work, fine the fuckers.
- If your politician places an advert saying that the election was stolen, fine the fuckers.
Social network is a bubble usually of people you want to associate with. When a company attempts to play with that bubble, *THEN* they should take on all liability. If Facebook's algorithm promotes content they should be made liable. If money changes hands to promote content they should be liable.
Re: (Score:2)
Same for politicians and political lies?
Fining a politician for lying is like fining a prostitute for having sex?
Re: (Score:3)
Social media platforms are more than just passive conduits of information. They aren't designed to serve users' habits, they are designed to shape them in a way that can be monetized.
This means maximizing engagement, and if you *only* pursue that goal you cater to confirmation bias, and you end up steering people down rabbit holes like QAnon.
I have no trouble telling you *exactly* what I want out of social media. I want social media to serve its *users*, for them to be the customers not the product. But
Wait, so politicians wanted yes or no? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, so politicians wanted a yes or no answer and didn't get it? LOL, now you know how we feel about you, guys. Suck it up.
Re:Wait, so politicians wanted yes or no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so politicians wanted a yes or no answer and didn't get it? LOL, now you know how we feel about you, guys. Suck it up.
Funny, yes, but in practice, I think it's quite the opposite. Politicians live or die on giving answers that distill something complicated down to some mindless catch phrase that they can put on a bumper sticker. What we're seeing is them trying to apply that same level of borderline illiteracy to complex technical and/or philosophical questions and wondering why the CEOs are looking at them like they're idiots.
What's really needed is for more people to look at them like they're idiots. Any questions in a hearing on censorship, disinformation, etc. are unlikely to be able to be answered with a yes or no response unless the questions are things like, "You've been talking for a long time. Would you like to take a break and get a drink of water?" These are not simple issues, and trying to dumb them down to the point that anybody can understand the answers can only result in answers of such low value that they probably aren't worth asking. And anybody who says otherwise almost certainly doesn't understand the issues well enough to ask questions that have any value in the first place.
The bigger concern is that those same people who don't understand enough to ask good questions and get mad because they don't understand the answers when they get them are the same people who are going to be writing the regulations, and no doubt badly screwing them up as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue is that each politician gets five minutes to ask their questions and get answers to them. So they don't want witnesses to stall. It's a stupid way to use time and makes hearings about soundbites not discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger concern is that those same people who don't understand enough to ask good questions and get mad because they don't understand the answers when they get them are the same people who are going to be writing the regulations, and no doubt badly screwing them up as usual.
The lobbyist who is the politicians handler will write that law, favoring their own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. So the right question to ask is which lobbyists are trying to rein in tech companies. It clearly isn't privacy lobbyists, because those don't exist. My guess would be media company lobbyists, but it could also be lobbyists from foreign companies trying to reduce U.S. dominance on the Internet. Hard to say.
You must be new here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a N00B would think that hours and hours of congressional testimony with no real substance is unusual. How adorable.
Congressional hearings are the penultimate "Dog and Pony Show". Lots of bluster and posturing, with no real outcomes. I have followed politics closely for over 20 years and I literally cannot name you one single congressional investigation outside of the Lewinsky incident that actually involved anyone being punished as you might expect from a civil/criminal trial where somebody gets fined or goes to jail. Its all show. Bread and circuses to make the masses feel good that something is being done. But its just posturing from both sides. Nothing more.
People get up there and testify, and are made uncomfortable. And that is the extent of the punishment, regardless of what they really deserve. Its a farce. Nobody gets an actual punishment like a fine or jail.
And remember, Clinton wasnt impeached for what he did in the Oval Office, no matter how egregious or disrespectful you might think the act was. He was impeached for daring to lie to Congress about what he did. He could do nasty things unbecoming of the office, and thats ok to some. But Lie to congress?!?!?! *clutches pearls* HOW DARE YOU!!!! (/sarcasm)
Curious when congress became experts? (Score:5, Insightful)
...in anything?
Remember how just fairly recently, we used to mock these guys ceaselessly "it's a network of tubes"?
I genuinely would like to understand how suddenly we're placing all our faith that they're going to get THIS right?
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, it's not as if the CEOs are experts either. If they truly wanted answers they'd be talking with the tech leads at each respective company.
Of course they won't do that, because this was nothing more than a dog and pony show and that's all it intended to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how just fairly recently, we used to mock these guys ceaselessly "it's a network of tubes"?
No I don't. And if you do you're not remembering it either. Congress never said the internet is a "network of tubes", one specific person said that and we rightfully mocked him for it.
I genuinely would like to understand how suddenly we're placing all our faith that they're going to get THIS right?
I am genuinely curious as to why you think your post is relevant? I mean here we have people asking questions. That doesn't make them experts in anything. That's the whole reason they are asking questions in the first place. You are literally criticising the most correct thing to do.
I for one support people asking questions be
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think the better description would be "ignorantly mocked him for it". Look up Bellamy Tube. (Sorry, apparently there's now too much noise around that name, so look up "pneumatic tube system" but you lose the historical perspective.) Various places in the 1920's and 30's had pneumatic tube systems for sending messages around and between downtown businesses. And the switching was a nightmare, but it was done.
LOL they don't want to tell them anything! (Score:2)
the purpose wasn't information (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every public Congressional hearing is political posturing ONLY. It's been that way for decades.
Someone who knows (Score:5, Interesting)
If congress really wanted some answers, they'd stop having the CEOs of these tech corps testify at the hearings and call on some of the actual workers in those corporations. For example, instead of hearing streams of disconnected bullshit from Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg, they should get some of the people at those corporations who are actually tasked with moderation.
Then, we might find out what's really going on behind the curtain. As they stand now, these hearings are nothing more than raw footage for corporate board room sizzle reels. If you want to see Jack and Zuck sweat, talk to the people who work for them, even five layers below them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I ask your ex girlfriend what kind of a guy you are, are you sure I will end up with a truthful answer?
Re: (Score:3)
they should get some of the people at those corporations who are actually tasked with moderation. Then, we might find out what's really going on behind the curtain.
The problem with that is you end up asking a very narrow view point questions on corporate policy which doesn't achieve anything either. Lackies may not know, or may not follow the policy properly. Worse still they may do something and answer differently fearing retribution. We see this all the time when doing incident investigation. The more serious the incident the more generic or even silent the people around it stay. The worst example of this was when we questioned a man who managed to drill a hole in a
Regulation hurts profitability and profits (Score:2)
So ... (Score:2)
Congress Questioned Big Tech CEOs For 5 Hours Without Getting Any Good Answers
So the CEOs acted like most Congressional representatives -- they talk a lot, using vague language, with no good answers.
Everyone wanted simple "yes" or "no" answers, though few were given.
Try getting one of those from a member of Congress...
summary (Score:2)
On one side: people who don't know enough to know what to ask
On the other: people who want to avoid answering
This dialog is BY DESIGN (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawmakers were NOT there grilling tech CEOs with their purposeful "Yes or No" bullshit questions, in order to elicit any kind of meaningful or even actionable response.
No.
Lawmakers are grilling tech CEOs with their purposeful "Yes or No" bullshit questions, in order to rack up political "Gotcha!" team points so they could jump up and down like rabid monkeys (ironically on the very social media platforms they complain about), in order to make themselves look like they're "taking action", all while not actually doing a damn thing. They're gonna collect their "I'll take that as a No" forced responses and go back and spend the rest of the week packing Twitter shit balls to throw at each other.
Enough of Drain the Swamp. It's time to Flush the Toilet. If none of them can actually get anything done of consequence, then perhaps none of them is how many The People need going forward.
And we all know damn well lawmakers aren't actually going to punish members of their beloved Donor Class.
News bites (Score:5, Interesting)
Eager to impose new regulations? (Score:2)
...both sides of the aisle are eager to impose new regulations on tech platforms.
Fuck that! Grow a pair, then forcibly break up one of those 'tech giants' and sell it off for spare parts. Then watch the other two fall into line. No? Oh yeah, that's right, I momentarily forgot - this is all just posturing and bullshit. Tech, Industry and Wall Street actually run the country, and elected 'leaders' are their beards and their puppets.
Either do something meaningful, or fuck off with pretending that there's anything of substance going on here. Your lies are starting to wear thin and sound ho
Re: (Score:2)
forcibly break up one of those 'tech giants' and sell it off for spare parts
Guess where all the teachers' and firefighters' pension funds are invested.
Congress was just fine ... (Score:2)
Silly congress, questions are for blogs. (Score:2)
If they wanted answers in a timely manor, they could have let those testifying know what the questions were going to be in advance.
They didn't do that, because they aren't actually interested in getting answers.
Congress should run all businesses (Score:2)
I realize there are a few businesses where no two people ever have the opportunity to communicate, but I think the argument is being made for Congress to run at least 95% of the economy, and I think my estimate is on the low side.
Not the goal (Score:2)
The goal is not to get good answers. The goal is for the questioners to showboat themselves.
Re:Number 1 Priority (Score:5, Insightful)
Raise your own kids. It's not the responsibility of the government, and sure as fuck not of the tech companies, to nanny your kids.
If you worry so much about what they see on the Internet, then it's YOUR responsibiliity to decide what they do and do not see.
If you can't be bothered to police their access yourself, then they should get NO Internet.
You can create your own access list for your house with technology you already have, and if they have smartphones, you set your own ground rules with them. If there's no mutual trust between you and your kids to the point where you need a 3rd party to intervene, then that's on YOU to fix, not the government, not the tech companies, and not the world-wide Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why having a "kids only" internet doesn't make things better and fulfill your objections. Something that where all sites that can be held responsible for COPA violations or adult content. It's different from "make the internet friendly for kids".
If possible, making it so only kids could get on it would be nice. This is logistically harder. And parents would still need to monitor what their kids do. But it supplies a level of "this is kid safe" so parents don't have to view every site their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Raise your own kids. It's not the responsibility of the government, and sure as fuck not of the tech companies, to nanny your kids.
Absolutely agree with the above. At the same time you also have to admit that social media companies are much closer to gambling than traditional cable TV. So we need to have a conversation about tech companies in general and social media in particular not exploit kids for profit (e.g. loot boxes, in-app purchases, engagement algorithms).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can create your own access list for your house with technology you already have
No you can't. I've tried on both MacOS and Windows. The deal is that allow-lists are basically impossible in the modern internet.
* Online schooling needs youtube because teachers post links to it in class. Therefore, suddenly, the entirety of youtube is available to them. You can use Google's parental restrictions but they only restrict adult content; not all the junk that kids will seek out. My workaround was to write an HTML-rewriting filter which strips out all the recommended videos. I'll next try to fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the bar for "curating content"? All of the sites they call Big Tech algorithmically sort content to present to you. Sounds like curation to me. I guess they could do away with that, and rework the sites to function like LiveJournal ca 2002. That would probably be a good thing, since people would have to actively seek out batshit insanity, without the algorithm serving it up for them as it does now.
As far as "minors-only internet" - I'm not seeing any real idea there. We already have services catering
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, not being a felon under US law is pretty nice.
Re: In the US (Score:3)
Re: Well, Big Tech paid ahead of time (Score:2)