4 ms·
I follow Antonio García Martínez on Twitter and he's usually always making this same argument: that any privacy regulation is just going to entrench Facebook an
by IBM 8y ago
I follow Antonio García Martínez on Twitter and he's usually always making this same argument: that any privacy regulation is just going to entrench Facebook and Google. Which is very convenient because the implied solution to that is no regulation at all [1]!
But no one who cared about privacy thought this California bill was anyway a giant triumph. Everyone knows it's not equivalent to GDPR, for one because it's just in one state. This was just the result of a handful of people taking advantage of a quirk of California's legislative process to a put a gun to lawmakers's heads. If not for the ballot proposition process, California would be the last place I'd expect to pass strong EU-style privacy laws, because it's home to the surveillance capitalism industry.
What that California bill did do was show some tangible movement can be made in the US, to the point where the internet companies are now mobilizing to make a federal law (in the hope that this current Congress and Administration will not pass anything close to what's on the books in EU) [2]. What they didn't expect is that it's not just the left that is gunning for Facebook, Google, and Twitter anymore, it's the right as well. You might believe both aisles of the political spectrum are motivated by partisan reasons, but it doesn't matter. The bipartisan environment required for strong regulation to happen is here.
Privacy activists should seize on the opportunity to pass a federal law that's equivalent to the EU's. And if there's no movement on that, force the issue by creating a patchwork of laws in state legislatures. They should also seek out the backing of Apple, Salesforce, IBM, Oracle, or anyone else in the tech industry that has the straightforward business model of selling a product or service for money to a customer. It's critical to make clear to legislators that there's no united front from the "tech industry" on this.
[1] The real answer is antitrust enforcement, which is also gaining political support.
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-federal-privacy-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/technology/tech-industry-...
- TheAceOfHearts 8y agoOver the last few years I've observed a growing sentiment on the right that they are not being treated fairly by a lot of big tech companies. I don't know in what way it'll manifest, but if that trend continues it might seriously harm some of the big players. Therefore it wouldn't surprise me to see support from the right.
- fapjacks 8y agoYou don't specifically say one way or the other, but your phrasing made me curious: Would you assert that big tech companies do treat the red team fairly? I don't know how many people will reply, but if you are reading this, I would also like to know your answer to this question. I have been a social outsider my entire life, and while it's been tough in almost every conceivable fashion, it does let me see the forest of American politics for the trees with respect to both the blue team and the red team. And I assert that big tech companies in fact do treat red-teamers "unfairly" (for a value of "unfair" which is not limited to right-wing fringe elements). Please note however that I assert nothing about causality, only that it is so.
- hnisgroupthink 8y agoThis isn't even controversial, they've been blocking right-wing people nonstop. Hacker news does it too btw
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> Which is very convenient because the implied solution to that is no regulation at all There is actually a third way. We have three main options for this kind of infrastructure. The first is centralized for-profit ad-supported proprietary systems, but then you get Facebook-like privacy problems. The second is centralized for-profit subscription fee supported proprietary systems, but then you get Oracle-like rent seeking and onerous prices and the same privacy problems because they stem from the centralization rather than the advertising. The third option is decentralized/federated infrastructure running open source software financed with grants, like DNS or the web. So that a message from Alice to Bob goes directly from Alice to Bob, encrypted end to end, and there is no Eve in the middle to have to regulate for privacy. The thing that would speed that along is funding for development. So if you want something from the government here, get that.