3 ms·

I've been thinking about to what extent I support regulation of tech companies. Usually I side with software companies against governments (especially in cases

by firasd 7y ago

I've been thinking about to what extent I support regulation of tech companies. Usually I side with software companies against governments (especially in cases like protecting encryption, etc.) But there are some battles where it doesn't seem like a tech issue per se, and I don't see why I need to side with the company: * Apple vs govts on taxes * Amazon (even Uber) vs govts on employee status and income I don't really believe in the 'break up Google/Facebook/etc' case though. It is not likely to address the harms people imagine it will. (As a minor example, consider how cookie prompts solved nothing.) But some regulation on specific features across the board makes sense (like laws about facial recognition, or existing regulations like COPPA.) I've always thought the Cambridge Analytica scandal was overblown and I think some of the anti-FB ballast provided by that story is fading. I think elite media/political opinion might over-emphasize it. Are average Americans really sitting around asking for Google to be cut apart? I don’t think so… Plus, what about the beneficial aspects of the SV ecosystem? Reducing the power of Silicon Valley is a great way to let the NSA have more spying power, have fewer immigrants at top executive roles, let Comcast charge extra based on apps you use, enable record labels to shut down Youtube… and mess up many other things we take for granted.

StreamBright 7y ago
I think at this stage it is not companies vs governments but companies vs people. An average user has no idea what is happening while using an Android phone or chatting on Messenger. As anecdotal evidence i was showing to people that I cannot send a particular website over to them over messenger because Facebook classified that website not suitable to be sent over. 9 out of 10 was shocked that Facebook reads their messages. The recent developments about audio recordings also crazy. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/13/facebook-messenger-user-recordings-contractors-listening https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/13/facebook-...
cstpdk 7y ago
> where it doesn't seem like a tech issue per se, Much of the privacy issues around "tech" companies revolves around the fact that they are advertising companies. That is the driving force behind them spying on users. But we do not group them as such The remaining issues around "tech" companies usually revolve around their monopolistic nature, which is also an issue in other sectors. I guess what I am barking at is that phrasing this as a battle against "tech" is a misnomer and might lead to unfortunate backlashes. That being said, I am happy that Fru Vestager gets to soldier on, the fight itself is definitely valid. Now if we could just get our governments to stop spying on us we would be golden
tomp 7y ago
Breaking up Google / Facebook is obviously not going to work. The services / companies benefit from strong network effects, it's a natural winner-takes-all industry with only a few powerful players. That doesn't mean that they should not be controlled. I find it completely repulsive how they are able to set non-transparent, arbitrary policy (regarding censorship, payments etc.) that affect billions of people all over the world, who just have to accept it without recourse.
xg15 7y ago
I don't know. Digital services and connected devices are becoming essential to almost all areas of modern life. Yes, you can decline to use many of the services of you have serious dedication and want to miss out on all technological progress of the last decades. But other services are almost unavoidable: You need a bank account and email address to take part in society; You need a car to travel, which today is most likely already a rolling computer with cloud uplink. In the future, just walking on the street might place you into some database via automatic facial recognition. Currently, control about all those services is seen purely as a business topic and therefore the service providers are given complete freedom. I think that mismatches greatly with the impact those services have have on modern life, so I think there is a case to put them under democratic control.
- firasd 7y ago
  Yeah this is definitely something to think about.
xg15 7y ago
> As a minor example, consider how cookie prompts solved nothing. (Disclaimer: not a lawyer) I don't know about the original cookie law, but as for the horrible GDPR prompts, the GDPR is not mandating those at all - in fact, there is language in there that could be interpreted as forbidding them (denial of consent must not make the service unusable). However, the GDPR goes head-on against the main business model conducted on the web and I imagine for many companies, fulfilling the GDPR in good faith is simply not possible because it would threaten the core of their business. So they add the prompts as something between a loophole and a cargo-cult action. So yes, I think the tension between the GDPR and the tech business models is real and likely leads to unnecessary prompts as a result - but it's not as is the lawmakers demanded the prompts to be there.

by firasd 7y ago

StreamBright 7y ago

I think at this stage it is not companies vs governments but companies vs people. An average user has no idea what is happening while using an Android phone or chatting on Messenger. As anecdotal evidence i was showing to people that I cannot send a particular website over to them over messenger because Facebook classified that website not suitable to be sent over. 9 out of 10 was shocked that Facebook reads their messages. The recent developments about audio recordings also crazy. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/13/facebook-messenger-user-recordings-contractors-listening https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/13/facebook-...

cstpdk 7y ago

> where it doesn't seem like a tech issue per se, Much of the privacy issues around "tech" companies revolves around the fact that they are advertising companies. That is the driving force behind them spying on users. But we do not group them as such The remaining issues around "tech" companies usually revolve around their monopolistic nature, which is also an issue in other sectors. I guess what I am barking at is that phrasing this as a battle against "tech" is a misnomer and might lead to unfortunate backlashes. That being said, I am happy that Fru Vestager gets to soldier on, the fight itself is definitely valid. Now if we could just get our governments to stop spying on us we would be golden

tomp 7y ago

Breaking up Google / Facebook is obviously not going to work. The services / companies benefit from strong network effects, it's a natural winner-takes-all industry with only a few powerful players. That doesn't mean that they should not be controlled. I find it completely repulsive how they are able to set non-transparent, arbitrary policy (regarding censorship, payments etc.) that affect billions of people all over the world, who just have to accept it without recourse.

xg15 7y ago

I don't know. Digital services and connected devices are becoming essential to almost all areas of modern life. Yes, you can decline to use many of the services of you have serious dedication and want to miss out on all technological progress of the last decades. But other services are almost unavoidable: You need a bank account and email address to take part in society; You need a car to travel, which today is most likely already a rolling computer with cloud uplink. In the future, just walking on the street might place you into some database via automatic facial recognition. Currently, control about all those services is seen purely as a business topic and therefore the service providers are given complete freedom. I think that mismatches greatly with the impact those services have have on modern life, so I think there is a case to put them under democratic control.

firasd 7y ago
Yeah this is definitely something to think about.

xg15 7y ago

> As a minor example, consider how cookie prompts solved nothing. (Disclaimer: not a lawyer) I don't know about the original cookie law, but as for the horrible GDPR prompts, the GDPR is not mandating those at all - in fact, there is language in there that could be interpreted as forbidding them (denial of consent must not make the service unusable). However, the GDPR goes head-on against the main business model conducted on the web and I imagine for many companies, fulfilling the GDPR in good faith is simply not possible because it would threaten the core of their business. So they add the prompts as something between a loophole and a cargo-cult action. So yes, I think the tension between the GDPR and the tech business models is real and likely leads to unnecessary prompts as a result - but it's not as is the lawmakers demanded the prompts to be there.