Will Political Polarization Stop US Lawmakers from Regulating Big Tech? (nytimes.com) 82
A media lobbying group wants to see tech platforms reigned in with stronger antitrust laws. But the group's president tells the New York Times the biggest force supporting the status quo is hyperpartisanship.
The Times reports: The lack of regulation of technology companies is not because elected officials don't understand the internet. That used to be the case, and it helps explain why they have been so slow with oversight measures. Now, though, new questions about technology get mapped onto increasingly intractable political divides. Without the distractions of bizarre questions, what's left is the naked reality that the parties are deeply at odds over how to protect consumers and encourage businesses. Dozens of bills to strengthen privacy, encourage competition and quell misinformation have stalled because of a basic disagreement over the hand of government on businesses.
"Congress has again shown it's all bark and no bite when it comes to regulating Big Tech," said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, adding: "We've made no progress for decades."
The cost of the government's long education on tech is that regulation is increasingly out of reach. In April 2018, 14 years after founding thefacebook.com and more than five years after Facebook surpassed 1 billion users, Mark Zuckerberg appeared for the first time before Congress... [D]espite bipartisan agreement that tech companies have run roughshod and deserve more oversight, none of the bills discussed in those hearings four years ago have been passed. Turns out, holding a hearing that humbles the most powerful business executives in the world is much easier than legislating. Very bright lines of partisan disagreements appear when writing rules that restrict how much data can be collected by platforms, whether consumers can sue sites for defamation, and whether regulators can slow the march of dominance of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook.
The Times points out that, just for example, when it came to the possibility of regulating cryptocurrency, "the divides on regulation broke down along party lines" Wednesday after six crypto executives testified before a House committee. Democrats warned that the fast-growing industry needed clearer oversight. "Currently, cryptocurrency markets have no overarching or centralized regulatory framework, leaving investments in the digital assets space vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and abuse," said Representative Maxine Waters, the Democrat of California who chairs the committee. Other Democrats expressed similar caution....
Republicans hewed to their free-market stripes at the crypto hearing. Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, told the crypto executives that he was in favor of their work and that regulations the industry has embraced may go too far. Representative Ted Budd, Republican of North Carolina, worried that lawmakers could push innovation in financial technology out of the United States.
The Times reports: The lack of regulation of technology companies is not because elected officials don't understand the internet. That used to be the case, and it helps explain why they have been so slow with oversight measures. Now, though, new questions about technology get mapped onto increasingly intractable political divides. Without the distractions of bizarre questions, what's left is the naked reality that the parties are deeply at odds over how to protect consumers and encourage businesses. Dozens of bills to strengthen privacy, encourage competition and quell misinformation have stalled because of a basic disagreement over the hand of government on businesses.
"Congress has again shown it's all bark and no bite when it comes to regulating Big Tech," said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, adding: "We've made no progress for decades."
The cost of the government's long education on tech is that regulation is increasingly out of reach. In April 2018, 14 years after founding thefacebook.com and more than five years after Facebook surpassed 1 billion users, Mark Zuckerberg appeared for the first time before Congress... [D]espite bipartisan agreement that tech companies have run roughshod and deserve more oversight, none of the bills discussed in those hearings four years ago have been passed. Turns out, holding a hearing that humbles the most powerful business executives in the world is much easier than legislating. Very bright lines of partisan disagreements appear when writing rules that restrict how much data can be collected by platforms, whether consumers can sue sites for defamation, and whether regulators can slow the march of dominance of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook.
The Times points out that, just for example, when it came to the possibility of regulating cryptocurrency, "the divides on regulation broke down along party lines" Wednesday after six crypto executives testified before a House committee. Democrats warned that the fast-growing industry needed clearer oversight. "Currently, cryptocurrency markets have no overarching or centralized regulatory framework, leaving investments in the digital assets space vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and abuse," said Representative Maxine Waters, the Democrat of California who chairs the committee. Other Democrats expressed similar caution....
Republicans hewed to their free-market stripes at the crypto hearing. Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, told the crypto executives that he was in favor of their work and that regulations the industry has embraced may go too far. Representative Ted Budd, Republican of North Carolina, worried that lawmakers could push innovation in financial technology out of the United States.
Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Big tech? Isn't it stopping lawmakers from regulating anything?
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
If they'll admit it, they certainly won't admit it publicly. Especially since they're taking huge campaign contributions from the rat poison industry. And when the "Anti-Rat Poison in Hot Dogs Act of 2021" comes up for a vote, they will definitely filibuster and vote against it because not eating rat poison is socialist and whether or not to give your kids rat poison in hot dogs is a personal choice.
Thanks for the example (Score:4, Interesting)
That was an excellent example of precisely what the article is talking about - hyper partisan BS rhetoric that distracts from getting anything useful done.
The founders were wise (Score:3)
The founders designed a system in which passing a new law requires the agreement of the upper house, the lower house, AND the president. A bunch the bossy busybodies all have to agree before they can force the rest of us to do something or not do something. Perhaps they knew what they were doing when they designed it that way. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But if Facebook breaks down; the worst that happens is I don't get my daily dose of cute dog pictures, cartoons, and memes. That's a very far cry from my food, shelter, or transport; and the doggos do not justify nearly the same level of regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
As a member of the Deep State, I am going to prove you a secrete that will change your understanding of the world!
People are Animals with Animal instincts, People are not always rational, People are often too focused on their daily lives that they can see the obvious.
In computer science and mathematics, there is a study of mapping/graphing algorithms. One of the simplest algorithms is the "Greedy" algorithm, where it picks the shortest path for each node. This algorithm rarely ever provides the best or o
Re: (Score:2)
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: No... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Lobbyists will ensure that any legislative change will involve less regulation on the companies they represent and more regulation for their competitors. Same old story.
If they are already dominant in their market. It's better to have regulations to discourage competitors from entering your market.
Re: No... (Score:4, Interesting)
Regulation normally appears in saturated markets, where each of the big players has carved out its niche and does not want anyone to enter it.
On the other hand, after the dust of competition has settled, often the argument that innovation will improve each malfunction in that market loses its appeal, as there is not much competition left, and the problems appear more clearly. So regulation comes in to ease most of it, as the market only moves with glacial speed.
Re: (Score:1)
This.
Regulation normally appears in saturated markets, where each of the big players has carved out its niche and does not want anyone to enter it.
On the other hand, after the dust of competition has settled, often the argument that innovation will improve each malfunction in that market loses its appeal, as there is not much competition left, and the problems appear more clearly. So regulation comes in to ease most of it, as the market only moves with glacial speed.
There are all sorts of markets that are regulated way before they are saturated. Usually that happens because of some genius coming up with an 'innovative business model of a variety otherwise known as 'fraud', 'abuse', 'pyramid scheme', 'Ponzi scheme', 'insider trading' ... etc, etc, ad nauseam ...
Re: (Score:3)
Fraud, abuse, ponzi schemes or similar are forbidden by law, independently of their actual application. It might be not easy to prove them in a new and emerging field, but you need no new regulation to make a ponzi scheme illegal. Please don't argue that some business practices appear
Re:No... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not just money, if Fecebook could incite political divisiveness so the two parties spend all their time fighting each other rather than sorting out Fecebook, they can pretty much guarantee they'll never be reigned in by anyone.
It's a good thing they're not in any position to stoke divisiveness, and have never done so in the past either, because if they did the country would be in serious trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just money, if Fecebook could incite political divisiveness so the two parties spend all their time fighting each other rather than sorting out Fecebook, they can pretty much guarantee they'll never be reigned in by anyone.
It's a good thing they're not in any position to stoke divisiveness, and have never done so in the past either, because if they did the country would be in serious trouble.
Facebook is already doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
Money will.
Such a great, but incomplete answer. There's also Pandering, Attention Whoring ALONG with greed that'll have more effect before polarization . . .
America isn't as divided as everyone makes it out to be - it's just a super vocal minority that gets dividends from sowing discord.
Now that I think about - yep, that checks, Money is at the head of the line.
Re: (Score:3)
Money is part of it, but recently almost every freaking topic, has became political.
When I am in the company of people with mixed political stances, I end up in a mine field where polite conversation becomes a source of political redirect for any stupid reason.
Weather, Shoes, Beans, Cars, Sports, Health of a family member, Holidays, Fast food chains, Pillows...
Even entering a warm house on a cold day, and saying something like "It is nice and warm in here" could devolve quickly into explaining how they use
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
Because polarization is the tool used to grab voters and through that more money.
For reference (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We were stuck inside and couldn't go to the park. The whether had us completely rained in.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that we "We whirr stuck inside"?
Re: (Score:2)
It's "reined in", from halting a horse with the reins.
Re: (Score:1)
Where's the AI browser pluggin they promised to flag these kinds of things?
"Big Tech" will never be regulated by lawmakers (Score:2)
No (Score:3)
But the lobbiests that pay the politicians off might allow big tech to get off the hook
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Also there's that pesky First Amendment that specifically prohibits the government from "quelling misinformation".
The more you read, the worse it gets (Score:3)
Cops were looking to fabricate evidence because they just knew that guy had to be a drug dealer.
https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/... [wdrb.com]
On March 12, a day before the raid on Taylor's Springfield Drive unit, a warrant affidavit written by Detective Joshua Jaynes said he had “verified through a US Postal Inspector that Jamarcus Glover has been receiving packages” at Taylor’s home.
Police cited that claim as a justification for seeking out a warrant that allowed officers to enter her home as part of
Political divide here is a farce (Score:4)
In terms of regulating Facebook and the like, there is no "political divide" preventing change. As with any actually important political matter, it's all about money over party.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is regulation I think it is more likely to come from Europe. The EU is far less corruptible. Just look at GDPR.
Re: Political divide here is a farce (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GDPR applies to EU companies. They hate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The EU genuinely is less corrupt, and as the GP says it's les corruptible, but there's good reason for that.
For starters many European countries have stronger anti-lobbying laws, but because the EU is a large plurality of cultures and ideas, many of whom are inherently opposed to the mere concept of corruption (especially the Baltic states, some of whom suffered the worst of it under defacto Russian rule), it means it's a largely impossible task for lobbyists to succeed in corrupting the parliament in gener
Such a ridiculous framing (Score:2, Insightful)
If you read the article - heck, if you read the summary - it's perfectly clear that the Dems are willing to do *something* to regulate Big Tech and the Republicans are not willing to do *anything*. Describing that as a problem of hyper-partisanship, as though both sides are being equally lackadaisical in an article that clearly starts from a perspective that some regulation *ought* to happen, is just absurd. It's wilfully ignoring that only the Republicans are being hyperpartisan, in the sense of blocking a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's wilfully ignoring that only the Republicans are being hyperpartisan, in the sense of blocking all legislation.
Republicans can't just claim Government can't solve anything. They also need to step up and prove it on occasion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's wilfully ignoring that only the Republicans are being hyperpartisan, in the sense of blocking all legislation.
Republicans can't just claim Government can't solve anything. They also need to step up and prove it on occasion.
That's the beauty of their scam, they don't need to prove it. Just like it doesn't matter that CRT isn't taught anywhere outside of university legal faculties, their base laps up anything they say completely uncritically.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed that the OP is taking a dig at the Republican party for being utterly incompetent when they are in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Right-wingers want to make their own speech platforms to compete with Facebook and Twitter. That's consistent with the usual Republican political screed. Besides, regulation of existing platforms will only prevent their eventual fade into obscurity ala MySpace.
Re: (Score:2)
And if "Team Red" were the ones proposing solutions, "Team Blue" would be duty bound to block their efforts.
Political force acts in a similar fashion to physical forces; it has to have something to act against.
This is the wrong question (Score:1)
"Will political polarization stop US lawmakers from regulating big tech?"
Of course not. Political polarization has nothing to do with it. Both parties are owned by the same corporate interests, and neither will do a damned thing to bite the hand that's feeding them.
Fuck the NY Times (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The NYT is a shit-show. They run anti-union hit pieces while their workers are attempting to unionize, they faked up that Tesla review where the author drove around the block until it died and then they made him an editor. Fuck them, fuck their claims of journalistic integrity, and double extra fuck their cries of give us money.
political polarization is destroying the country (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That is because the people, and by proxy the politicians representing them, cannot agree on how to solve the problems, so paralysis ensues. Further complicating the problem is the fact that no politician votes on a single initiative, but instead has to vote on a bloated package of initiatives as one. If you cannot agree on a solution, you are voting for the status quo. So here we are.
Re: (Score:1)
Quoted for truth. Shit gets done when Americans actually pull together. That is why politicians spend so much effort on making sure they don't get together, -- power. It keeps them in power.
Not just tech, but *all* industries... (Score:5, Interesting)
wants to see tech platforms reigned in with stronger antitrust laws
It shouldn't just be big tech. We need a general solution for huge companies. The banking debacle and "too big to fail" showed that. In a nutshell, there need to be at least two thresholds:
- Above size X, a company is no longer allowed to do acquisitions or be part of a merger.
- Above size Y, a company must immediately divest or break up into smaller organisations.
These thresholds must be applied automatically, without decades of wrangling in the courts. If your company is too big, it must break itself up. Failure to do so must result in harsh personal penalties for the members of the board of directors. Companies don't grow into behemoths overnight. Planning for these eventualities would just be part of their regular long-term planning.
Re: (Score:1)
wants to see tech platforms reigned in with stronger antitrust laws
It shouldn't just be big tech. We need a general solution for huge companies. The banking debacle and "too big to fail" showed that. In a nutshell, there need to be at least two thresholds:
- Above size X, a company is no longer allowed to do acquisitions or be part of a merger.
- Above size Y, a company must immediately divest or break up into smaller organisations.
These thresholds must be applied automatically, without decades of wrangling in the courts. If your company is too big, it must break itself up. Failure to do so must result in harsh personal penalties for the members of the board of directors. Companies don't grow into behemoths overnight. Planning for these eventualities would just be part of their regular long-term planning.
How about, above size X a company is considered so large it can no longer be considered a "private" company? Like when a company owns all the town squares? Then it is closer to a "utility".
Re: Not just tech, but *all* industries... (Score:2)
Above size Z, they have a choice: break up, or become a branch of government.* I mean if they're that irreplaceable...
*the key here is that automatically their stock is rebated at their original purchase price plus interest, and importantly, executive compensation is immediately adjusted to conform with government pay scales.
Two problems (Score:2)
Above size Y
How do you define size in a reliable way that cannot be easily gamed and how would this work for non-US companies who would not be limited in size and could easily own small-enough US subsidiaries?
Re: (Score:2)
Above size X
I spent a few minutes thinking about how to define "size". It's really tricky. The most obvious measures (e.g. market cap and market share) are clearly bad choices. Perhaps some combination of them? I thought about a market share limit that only kicks in once you hit a certain market cap (or similar valuation, for privately-held companies). You don't want a pure market cap limit because that would unfairly and uselessly disadvantage companies in capital-intensive industries. You don't want a pure market
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, one more thing: Your simple rule (assuming we could find simple answers to the complexities I already pointed out), might actually harm consumers. Scale and integration have significant positive effects; big, integrated companies are generally more efficient than smaller ones -- which is why there's a strong tendency for market leaders to become bigger and more integrated. We want to encourage those efficiencies, while also ensuring that big players have to continue competing and don't just begin exploi
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are democrats (Score:2)
The reason democrats can't break a senate (committee) tie is democrats.
Compromises (Score:1)
Well, allow me to be the first to say: to hell with "compromises" like that.
Law makers work for⦠(Score:1)
It makes you wonder... (Score:2)
Get rid of the neo-conservatives.. (Score:2)
The Senate and House Republicans are dominated by power-seeking jackasses who couldn't care less about actual 'conservatism' or the Constitution or what their constituents actually want, let alone what's good for the nation, they only want their own personal agendas, and their own personal power. Get rid of them, ALL OF THEM, and things will improve dramatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you did push Trump on us. One of the main reasons that Trump was voted into office because people wanted to change the liberal policy's set forth by the Obama admin. The second was because the democrats fielded the worse possible candidate they could at the time. More people voted against Hillary than voted for Trump. It is reasonable to assume that if the Democrats had fielded any but Hillary, Trump would have lost in a land slide.
But you don't need to worry about 2016. You need to be m
Political polarization is bad, this is worse. (Score:2)
That, and also the bribes. (Score:2)
I would argue that congress is still technologically illiterate, and would agree that hyperpartisanship plays a role...
Not as big a role as the bribes pay, though. Congress won't regulate tech because tech lobbies and pays "campaign contributions" (otherwise known as bribes) not to be regulated, or to steer regulations towards crushing upstart competition rather than reigning in their activity.
Corruption is the #1 problem in this country, but no one talks about it because it is ostensibly legal. It's ridi
Can we have more post titles with questions? (Score:2)
Is this a bad thing? (Score:2)
The lack of regulation of technology companies is not because elected officials don't understand the internet. That used to be the case, and it helps explain why they have been so slow with oversight measures. Now, though, new questions about technology get mapped onto increasingly intractable political divides. Without the distractions of bizarre questions, what's left is the naked reality that the parties are deeply at odds over how to protect consumers and encourage businesses. Dozens of bills to strengthen privacy, encourage competition and quell misinformation have stalled because of a basic disagreement over the hand of government on businesses.
(Emphasis added.)
The implicit message of this article is that a given set of regulation is desirable and if those other people would just stop digging in their dang heels, all would be well.
The other perspective is there's deep fundamental disagreements on what the right set of regulations, if any, should be. If that's the case, we shouldn't just implement something, anything. We need to first do the hard work of defining the problem, reaching a consensus the problem needs to be solved, and that specific se
ISPs (Score:2)
It's ridiculous to focus on regulating social media companies while ignoring the ongoing (or actively promoting) the harm the monopolistic / oligopolistic internet service providers continue to do to the US public. Start promoting community broadband and/or local loop unbundling, and then I might start to believe you actually give a damn about antitrust issues.
It seems as if... (Score:1)