White House Unveils Principles For Big Tech Reform (reuters.com) 38
The White House on Thursday outlined six principles to reform Big Tech platforms and said it was encouraged to see bipartisan interest in Congress to rein in major U.S. tech companies. Reuters reports: The six principles include promoting technology sector competition; adopting robust federal privacy protections, and tougher privacy and online protections for children; rescinding special legal protections for large tech platforms; increasing transparency about platforms' algorithms and content moderation decisions; and ending discriminatory algorithmic decision-making.
"The rise of tech platforms has introduced new and difficult challenges," the White House said, "from the tragic acts of violence linked to toxic online cultures, to deteriorating mental health and wellbeing, to basic rights of Americans and communities worldwide suffering from the rise of tech platforms big and small." A group of bipartisan lawmakers has introduced antitrust legislation aimed at reining in the four tech giants -- Meta Platform's Facebook, Apple, Alphabet's Google and Amazon.com -- that would bar the companies from favoring their own businesses in search results and other ways. The lawmakers have said they believe they have the 60 Senate votes needed to move forward, but no vote has yet been scheduled. Further reading: Big Tech's $95 Million Spending Spree Leaves Antitrust Bill On Brink of Defeat
"The rise of tech platforms has introduced new and difficult challenges," the White House said, "from the tragic acts of violence linked to toxic online cultures, to deteriorating mental health and wellbeing, to basic rights of Americans and communities worldwide suffering from the rise of tech platforms big and small." A group of bipartisan lawmakers has introduced antitrust legislation aimed at reining in the four tech giants -- Meta Platform's Facebook, Apple, Alphabet's Google and Amazon.com -- that would bar the companies from favoring their own businesses in search results and other ways. The lawmakers have said they believe they have the 60 Senate votes needed to move forward, but no vote has yet been scheduled. Further reading: Big Tech's $95 Million Spending Spree Leaves Antitrust Bill On Brink of Defeat
Going nowhere (Score:1)
No one undermines and attacks their allies and supporters.
Any bets on who this gets used against? (Score:2, Insightful)
No one undermines and attacks their allies and supporters.
Indeed.
I'm reminded of "campaign finance reform", which always claims to be about getting big money - from the rich, corporations, and other institutions - out of politics, and always ends up doing nothing about that, but always ends up doing nothing about that, but creating a minefield for opposition candidates and grass-roots efforts. It becomes an incumbent-protection scheme.
Any bets on who this gets used against, if it happens at all? (Mine are
Re: (Score:2)
The only way in which these principles will be used is as a threat to get companies to play along with government spying.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean because politicians can be bought, and because the GOP are fundamentalist true believers in no regulation, and block everything?
Oh, and, of course, people like you, who want to bribe...
Implying.... (Score:1)
Re:Implying.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Opening the big tech to law suits will dramatically increase censorship.
How? The right to free speech doesn't mean other people are obliged to repeat everything you say, no matter how wrong or damaging it might be.
You want the world to hear your views? Start your own fucking web site.
PS: Make sure it has "Truth" in the name so that people aren't confused by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Though the iOS [apple.com] and Android [google.com] apps do too.
Re: (Score:1)
Regardless of their current existence, they were taken down during a critical political time, with the big corporations protecting the establishment; corporations controlling political speech frightens me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I hope the GOP is crushed this fall, and your buddies go down in flames.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're one of the 29% [rasmussenreports.com] who think we're on the right track? Or have you fallen into the Red team/Blue team trap, and want the "evil" red team to remain out of power regardless of how bad blue team policies are?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm rather certain that there are people at the White House that have clear and cogent thoughts about big tech reform. This doesn't mean or imply that they are the ones making the decisions. And the building has no opinions at all.
I rather think you need to focus more on the clarity of either your thoughts or their expression. Unless, of course, your point *is* to make an emotional outburst. In that case you expressed yourself fairly well.
And enforcing anti-monopoly laws! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the details, but US anti-monopoly laws are weak and difficult to enforce.
Damned if you do... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the internet has some toxic communities, but at no point over the last 25+ years have I thought to myself, "What we really need is for the government to intervene". Let's put aside the somewhat problematic nature of the government getting involved in censoring speech, the government can't be trusted to run anymore more complicated than a lemonade stand ( and even there I'd want it tested ).
I'd much rather have the 'toxic online cultures' than anything the government can bring.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone agrees that there are toxic online communities, but we don't all agree on what they are. Some would say QAnon. Others would say BLM. Some would even say Fox or NPR.
Those advocating government "truth panels" should remember that any mechanism for suppression of speech will eventually be controlled by their political opponents. If you are comfortable with Biden as the arbiter of truth, will you also be comfortable with Trump or DeSantis after 2024?
There is precedent: In the 1930s, the left set up the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the internet has some toxic communities, but at no point over the last 25+ years have I thought to myself, "What we really need is for the government to intervene". Let's put aside the somewhat problematic nature of the government getting involved in censoring speech
How is it censorship?
Trump is free to set up his own web site and say whatever he damn well pleases on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about Trump, so let's ignore that.
Should the executive have *any* say in what is a "toxic community" and what isn't? Taking that a step further, what actions might the executive make which WOULDN'T run afoul of the 1st amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
Should the executive have *any* say in what is a "toxic community" and what isn't?
Yes.
Anything "White Power" for example. Let the White Power people build their own websites.
Anything that encourages suicide. That should probably go, too.
Anything that encourages terrorism or religious radicalism. Get rid of that. Some people are vulnerable to manipulation, let's not facilitate it.
Secondly: You may have the right to say anything you want (within limits) but nobody should be obliged to print what you say or re-transmit it in any form. Build your own media empire if that's what you want.
PS:
Reform with Secret Sauce? Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
"increasing transparency about platforms' algorithms and content moderation decisions; and ending discriminatory algorithmic decision-making."
There is no fucking way in hell anyone is going to get these companies to be more "transparent" about their secret sauce. Hell, it would be far too revealing to their advertisers when they find out that half the users are bots, and the other half are actually dead.
Nothing will happen with anything regarding Big Tech (a.k.a. The Donor Class) other than a very large amount of smoke blown up taxpayers asses for the next 2 years listening to lawmakers bullshit about reigning them in.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at how GDPR does it. Any decision made by a computer can be challenged. The subject of the decision can ask that it be explained to the, i.e. the criteria and logic used to make the decision must be divulged to them. They can also ask for a human to review it.
In the case of an AI black box, the company must divulge how they built the AI (e.g. what training material they used) and offer that human review option.
The EU is also currently looking at the issue of AI use and discrimination, and it seems like
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how GDPR does it. Any decision made by a computer can be challenged.
In the era of mega-corps literally representing the Donor Class, this statement is hollow at best.
You will only challenge these companies IF you can legally afford that fight. For 99% of individuals or even organizations, the simple answer is, you can't. And for the 1% who can, you'll probably lose.
Why do you think the US Government feels obligated to get involved here. The GDPR, is not how US companies do it.
Re: (Score:2)
We have regulators that you can ask to intervene if a company is not compliant. It's free.
Re: (Score:2)
Free you say? Huh. Public Defender grade regulation....vs. Too Big To Fail mega-corp. If I forced you to take bets for the win, should I even ask where you're laying that bet?
This recommendation has about as much value as stock market ratings agencies did in 2008. If regulators were doing their job, we wouldn't be talking about mega-corps that have bought and paid for their Untouchables status.
Out on a limb here but... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I would advocate that while "free speech" may be a right, *amplification* on social media should not be.
Additionally, interoperability between platforms should likely be mandated to reduce (Apple's) obvious anti competitive manoeuvres. It's not just Apple, anyone who can do it, will do it.
Re: Out on a limb here but... (Score:2)
Oh please. I use electricity and water daily. They are essential to my well-being and are proper utilities.
Social media, not so much. It can just go away entirely and the only difference in my life is that I'd have to listen to other people talk about how much they miss social media.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that analogy could hold, in a world where your house had a million competing water pipes coming in, another million electricity companies all bidding for each separate joule you use, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that "they don't have the brain function" is clearly wrong. They use it in an different way than you do. If you want to hear something abstract, listen to them talking about what they're in favor of or against. I defy you to tie most of what they say to anything concrete. I generally have only the vaguest of ideas as to what the folks I end up voting for are really in favor of, but I suspect it of being only marginally less bad than their opposition. They rarely make a statement clear enough tha
Tech Companies Unveil Plans to Reform Politicians (Score:2)
Tech Companies say "We're just fine thanks, but you all are a bunch of rotten crooks" while unveiling a new plan to reform politicians.
"Stop blaming us for your failure to understand tech firms, and stop calling anything you can't control `Big' Big Tech said to Big Politics."
The plan as outlined includes:
- Dishonesty will not be allowed. Politicians who fail three independent fact checks in one year will be automatically removed from office. "If the people who elected liars and thieves won't do it, we'll
Good luck, you're going to need it. (Score:1)
I can guarantee that Alphabet (Google's parent company) will be able to outbid any and every possible competitor to any of their business ventures for ad space on every one of their properties. If you sell anything that competes with an Alphabet product, you should think seriously about a new business plan...now.
Every proposal (Score:2)
Every proposal from this group of people is for partisan advantage, and if it didn't start out that way, it will end up that way.