3 ms·
1. Regardless of politics, legislating for net neutrality and privacy on the state level is just silly. 2. This won’t “reign in” the big firms it’ll shield the
by sqdbps 8y ago
1. Regardless of politics, legislating for net neutrality and privacy on the state level is just silly.
2. This won’t “reign in” the big firms it’ll shield them from competition.
3. At a time when China is totally protecting their tech firms from outside competition and providing them with stolen IP and the EU is using every tool in their disposal to go after US tech companies the last thing our lawmaker should do is try and stab our tech firms in the back.
- seorphates 8y ago1. That's certainly one way to observe reality. 2. Competition for your otherwise private or your public data sets? 3. Right, because China has bad habits therefore all your data should for sale. I'm kind of leaning the other way, really. I'll take the privacy laws and let tech adapt or die. The only part that I actually need is the pipe anyway (sort of the antithesis to big content AND data brokers, I guess, but there you go).
- sqdbps 8y agoI don't care what you're 'leaning' towards or what you can do without, this is about what's good for the nation. This kind of legislation is not pertinent to the average citizen and this whole debate is being conducted in an environment of hysteria around the cambridge analytica episode which is being fueled by political opportunism.
- seorphates 8y agoHow an individual's data is or is not handled is not pertinent to that individual? That seems an absurd position to take much less impose onto others via some sort of princely directive. It would seem like you have skin in the game of free-wheeling and dealing with folks and their data. That or just some passion without premise. What's good for the nation is (re)adapting to privacy - likewise its peoples and doubly so for the state. I also don't see your directive influencing those people's actions either, so it appears some other people disagree, too.
- joejerryronnie 8y agoRe: your third point - we should be very careful that proposed legislation doesn't hamstring US tech companies (even if the premise is sound). But we should also be much more aggressively going after the EU and Margrethe Vestager for their blatant anti-US tech protectionist actions. It is unconscionable that our government is concerned about steel production while turning a blind eye to our nation's real competitive advantage and largest national security threat, information technology.