7 ms·
From the draft bill: "SEC. 111. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION. (a) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.— A covered entity may not, through the collection use or sharing of personal infor
by runako 5y ago
From the draft bill:
"SEC. 111. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION.
(a) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.— A covered entity may not, through the collection use or sharing of personal information, discriminate against or make an economic opportunity unavailable on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, political ideology, or disability of a persons or class of persons.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Nothing in this section shall prohibit a covered entity from using or sharing personal information for the purpose of advertising, marketing, or soliciting economic opportunities to underrepresented populations."
The juxtaposition here makes it appear that every person could be considered a member of an underrepresented group and therefore that nothing will prohibit data sharing for marketing purposes. This bill looks like it is written with the goal of killing consumer privacy protections in the country.
Edit: Yes, I know draft bills change before they are passed. But draft bills often are the best expression of the drafters' priorities and intent.
Also: why are Republicans proposing big new regulation that would apply to every US business, impose additional bookkeeping & accounting work for every business, and then not improve consumer privacy protection? This is a tax on every US business, and it appears there is no meaningful payoff for consumers. Sounds like a lose-lose.
- vineyardmike 5y ago> why are Republicans proposing big new regulation that would apply to every US business, impose additional bookkeeping & accounting work for every business, and then not improve consumer privacy protection? The answer is obvious with their historic agenda... > discriminate against or make an economic opportunity unavailable on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, political ideology, or disability of a persons or class of persons. They want, ironically, the anti-discrimination clauses. They want to prevent someone from discriminating in tech. That would (they hope) block the perceived anti-right bias, and maybe even prevent companies from blocking people like trump all together.
- jude- 5y ago"Political ideology" really is the trojan horse here. Political ideology is not a protected class, whereas the others are. This bill is really about banning content moderation. Everything else is window dressing.
- nitrogen 5y agoPolitical ideology is not a protected class, whereas the others are. That's clearly a mistake of history. Political affiliation or non-affiliation really needs to be protected at the same level as religious affiliation or non-affiliation.
- jude- 5y ago[flagged]
- andrew_ 5y agoThat was a really fast manifestation of Godwin's Law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
- jude- 5y agoSo is there anything actually wrong with what I said? Also, here's Godwin himself on Godwin's Law, when talking about the alt-right folks who are now the backbone of the GOP: "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." [1] https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320 https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320
- threatofrain 5y ago> Also, politics isn't a religion. Your holding political beliefs is a choice you freely make.
- jude- 5y agoSo being a Nazi -- or any kind of violent extremist -- isn't a choice? If it wasn't a choice for you then you have my sympathy, but I can assure you that is not a typical experience in the US.
- kurthr 5y agoOnly the large companies will be able to comply keeping a barrier to entry for any competition. Everyone loses but the wealthy oligopolists so it's perfectly aligned.
- rarecoil 5y agoHere are some other antidiscrimination clauses in Federal law that read in a similar fashion: From EEOC on employment: "race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history)." [1] From FHA: "The Fair Housing Act prohibits this discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability." [2] Note that this act's (a) clause does not contain "sexual orientation" as above, and (b) specifically contains the new protected category of "political ideology". [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte... [2] https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_rights_and_obligations https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f...
- jude- 5y agoSo platforms can kick off LGBTQ+ folks, but not Nazis?
- sumeno 5y agoI'll give you a hint as to why they are doing this. There are already protections for race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, and disability. This is all about getting "political ideology" added to the list so that they can publicly discuss their horrendous beliefs and not get fired
- mint2 5y agoRepublicans are trying to pass laws to protect Literal nazis from being held accountable.
- jude- 5y agoYup. Everything else is window dressing. This is about forcing every private company to carry their propaganda whether they like it or not.
- leereeves 5y agoPolitical beliefs are already protected in California, where the companies that are most active in the surveillance economy are based. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/harassment/political-retaliation/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/harassment/political-reta...
- lalaland1125 5y agoThat's for employment. This is about whether or not Twitter can ban Nazis.
- kofejnik 5y agoGot it! If you want to punch someone, just declare them a nazi, right?
- lalaland1125 5y agoYou realize that there is a difference between getting banned on Twitter and physical violence?
- throwawaymanbot 5y ago[dead]
- lmkg 5y ago> Also: why are Republicans proposing big new regulation that would apply to every US business, impose additional bookkeeping & accounting work for every business, and then not improve consumer privacy protection? Two potential reasons. One: They believe federal privacy regulations are inevitable, and want to take the opportunity to shape it as much as they can. Two years ago there were competing Republican & Democrat proposals for privacy legislation; the meats were pretty similar to each other, and GDPR, and CCPA. The differences were some subtle details around the edges that are likely to end up being HUGELY impactful. For example, the democrat proposal included a Right of Private Action while the republican proposal did not. You can blah blah blah all goddamn day about what counts as private and what doesn't. But at the end of the day, the thing that matters most is "what happens when a company breaks the law?" Being able to sue them yourself is a very large difference from requiring all enforcement run through the Attorney General or an executive branch whose funding can be rescinded. Two, but related to the first: There are currently multiple states that have local privacy regulations. The number is likely to increase. Companies would prefer to deal with one set of laws rather than fifty even if the one set of laws is more difficult that any of the fifty laws it replaces. On a related note, the other serious difference between democrat and republican proposals was called "pre-emption." The republic proposal would have removed the ability for states to pass stricter privacy laws at home.