Should We Regulate Big Tech?

Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 months, 3 weeks ago to Culture
61 comments | Share | Flag

I'm not a government regulation proponent because when government assumes any degree of control things generally turn to crap and we lose our freedom. Even so, this article makes for a good, and well thought out, argument for a degree of regulation. More, the insights given into Google, Facebook and the like gives one reason to pause to consider their hobbling.
SOURCE URL: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/should-we-regulate-big-tech/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by chad 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    Start with a false premise and building toward the desired results will lead to faulty conclusions. If you are a turkey being supplied with free food and no effort on your part don't assume it will continue, search for the reason it is happening. When google started controlling the data allowed their reasoning is irrelevant, people began searching for alternatives. When Henry Ford determined that his company was too big and didn't need to innovate with new colors and styles GM did and Ford fell to second place and began following the others in order to survive. IBM became complacent thinking they did not need to innovate and Bill Gates came along (working from his garage) and determined that his market was individuals and worked to sell to them. IBM did not change because a government forced them to innovate, others brought about the change with a market that was free enough to allow it (America is not a free market capitalist society but it does fail to see innovation and only controls it later). One company can become very large and seem to be the only one in the market and in control. When free other innovators are always working around the edge and the least suspected are those who are developing something entirely new.
    The reference to 'owning' your phone number that you are renting from the company who owns it is misplaced control. Using the mob to demand that others cannot control the property they have is not adding to the free market but detracting from it and competition. Adding violence to the equation results in its abuse, restriction of competition, loss of value of property and destroys innovation. When builders have to work with invented rules instead of reality all suffer except those in charge of writing the rules. Then rulemaking becomes the place to earn money (not make it) and ruling becomes the vocation of choice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    It’s a Creepy Line.
    https://youtu.be/W8W4AXYEhv0
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
      They're creepy all right, but it's not a line for regulation. Laws are supposed to protect the rights of the individual, not regulate. We don't speak in terms of "regulating" crime, we prohibit it. Regulation means controlling what is or should be legal choices and actions.

      The rampant hacking and intrusion into personal computers to facilitate surveillance, stealing personal information, selling it, and assembling it into dossiers with no accountability, violation of privacy, misrepresenting their own actions, and collaborating with government for illegal search and seizure of documents are violations of the rights of the individual which should be codified in law as such. Those who seek to regulate it want to control the crime while allowing it to persist.

      Conservatives like the author of this Hillsdale article show no concern with the rights of the individual and therefore no concept of the difference between outlawing crime and regulating it. They are Pragmatist statists talking in terms of breaking up companies, their own opinions on economic "efficiency", and what degree of regulation to impose on innocent individuals and businesses while refusing to stop the abuse. They are the ones who are crossing the creepy line into statism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    Google is the pits. They skew their searches, often because of influence, monetary or political. When Hillary ran, I did a search of her brain damage and it's link to her plane crash in Iran (unreported). I found the info from other search engines, and foreign press. Google, when I searched, Hillary's health gave me Hillary's work out gear, etc. More delving reported Google had been contacted by her campaign staff and make a deal for them to show only positive results for Hillary. Same with searches for the long standing Congressional pedophile ring - no results on Google. They are intentionally affecting the outcome of elections for profit. Facebook is not objective. YouTube bans conservative videos, supports METOO, but allows "Rape the Baby", a song with accompanying call for the act, to remain on the site. That is just wrong.Obviously, they are incapable of of governing their own content, are anti-conservative, and anti-capitalism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 1 month ago
      Do you really wish for government hold your hand as you use the Internet? If you don't like site search elsewhere. Stop looking out for the non-thinkers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 month ago
        I would bet if the liberal entries were regulated, they would be screaming, and soon the conservative entries would be allowed as posted. No, I do not care for censorship, but that is exactly what we have, one-sided, and spreading. When I wanted infor on the Congressional pedophile ring, I had to find two other search engines which presented the history, current deatails, and named names. Meanwhile, some sites are skewed to favor Hillary and Rape the Baby, but nothing on my topic. It disgusts me, the one sided and yet money making presentations. By the way, when Obama gave the Internet to socialist UN, who did they put in charge of running it, good ole China, talk about censorship.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    Should WE regulate big tech? The operative term there is the WE and anything but the government.
    WE should refuse to participate any way we can and certainly not play or pay into big techs coffers.
    We older folks here remember when the phone was screwed fast onto the kitchen or hall way walls. If WE were not at home when it rang then life moved on and who ever called can call back later. The NOW generation will never accept this but I would be perfectly satisfied if we went right back to the slow life or at the very least make mobile phones to work only when you are standing in a spot and not walking down the street or driving down the road and that includes texting while moving. Big tech with all of their info gathering and how they use and abuse the intrusion into our basic privacy is way out of control but putting that Genie back in the bottle will never happen. They know where you are, when you were there and probably know where you are going. They know what toilet paper we all use and as far as I'm concerned they can use a big flush.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    Google, Facebook and Twitter came out of nowhere and so can other companies. I don't want Gov't controlling any businesses. Companies have the right to have political opinions. Just my opinion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 3 weeks ago
      They did not come out of nowhere.
      They were created by the CIA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        Google was not created by the CIA. Many technologies have been in part subsidized through research grants or paid by the military at some point in their progression. It doesn't mean that the technologies or the private companies were "created" by government, let alone the CIA.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 3 weeks ago
          Brin himself in his own paper acknowledges funding from the Community Management Staff of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) initiative, which was supplied through the NSF. The MDDS was an intelligence community program set up by the CIA and NSA. I also have it on record, as noted in the piece, from Prof. Thuraisingham of University of Texas that she managed the MDDS program on behalf of the US intelligence community, and that her and the CIA’s Rick Steinheiser met Brin every three months or so for two years to be briefed on his progress developing Google and PageRank.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            An "interest" by DARPA or other funding sources in technology does not mean that the CIA secretly created the high tech industry for ulterior purposes, plotting for Google to suppress conservatives.

            "Many technologies have been in part subsidized through research grants or paid by the military at some point in their progression. It doesn't mean that the technologies or the private companies were "created" by government, let alone the CIA."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ycandrea 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        Um...OK?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
          And you thought this was supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum. Welcome to Conspiracy Central.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            "this was supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum. Welcome to Conspiracy Central."
            Anyone searching for Ayn Rand on the Internet who has not read the books likely concludes they're about conspiracy theories and politics.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
              The ignorant who assume Ayn Rand is associated with conspiracy thinking are misled by the embarrassing conservative conspiracy theorists who falsely associate themselves with Ayn Rand's ideas. Such subjectivist thinking must be rejected everywhere it appears, especially on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum where it only causes a false bad reputation. It is difficult enough defending rational ideas in an irrational culture without having to defend against the false attributions arising from the subjectivists and uneducated dragging us down with their false association.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 2 weeks ago
                "subjectivist thinking must be rejected everywhere it appears, especially on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum where it only causes a false bad reputation."
                I agree completely.
                https://www.xkcd.com/386/
                I don't mean to be glib. Someone should get the word out. People who reject conspiracy theories should read Ayn Rand, even if only to figure out what putative conspiracy theorist think.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 months, 2 weeks ago
                  It's not that there is no such thing as a conspiracy -- it is a valid concept -- but it is not what drives the world. Ayn Rand emphasized the importance of ideas and rational thought. "Conspiracy theorists" finding "The CIA" and "Agenda 21" everywhere are a narrower instance of lack of objectivity in conceptual understanding. Those chronically doing it are hurting themselves in lack of understanding and offering nothing. The least we can do is keep it separate from the perception of Ayn Rand's ideas and approach.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            Ignoring reality is not objective.https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/how...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
              Ignoring all the known academic and other sources of search technology, along with the known real motives by everyone involved, together with the invention of reality to make secret "connections" "So they could run their secret dirty wars with even greater efficiency than ever before" is not objective.

              Besides, it left out the True ultimate source as "Agenda 21", the delivery of secret systems by black helicopter, and alien research captured at Area 51.

              The previous "report" proclaiming that Mark Zuckerberg "is simply a figure head for Facebook, and nothing more" to "document" that the "CIA created google, facebook and twitter" is just as bizarre.

              Some people gravitate to this nonsense, then lash out in anger when it is properly dismissed. Feeling it 'way down deep' is not objectivity, and dismissing fantasy concocted to replace reality is not "ignoring reality".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    The solution proposed by one of the creators of the internet is a peer structured replacement he calls "Solid." Reading the articles he's published on the idea, it sounds similar to the Dark Net (DN), which already exists, fed by individual volunteers offering part of their personal computer resources as an alternative to the big tech servers.

    While Virtual Personal Network promoters sell the idea that you can protect your information from invasive searches, they all have signed agreements with law enforcement that requires them to provide a path to enable searches subject to a warrant. The DN is technically criminal, in the eyes of government snoopers, because it isn't the property of any tech company, and the dynamic nature of information passing makes searches next to impossible. Big tech providers don't like the DN either, as they can't control it or track the users.

    The DN provides a protected way for "pamphleteering" of information that would get you thrown off of a regular internet site. Monetizing is the hard part for DN use, as advertisers can't track your data, which is what they use in deciding whether or not to support you. That's sort of why any monetizing of DN actors often comes from criminal sources, as they only care about results, not hit counts. Nonetheless, it's beginning to look like DN may be the way to develop and promote big tech alternatives, dodging control and providing a libertarian free market alternative.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
      Virtual Private Networks provide a way to make remote connections without revealing your IP address, attempting to sever an identifying connection between you and what you are looking at for those who don't otherwise have access to your id or local IP address. You can use the tor network for the same purpose.

      VPN companies do not "all have signed agreements with with law enforcement that requires them to provide a path to enable searches subject to a warrant". Any government has the authority to seize records with a warrant, depending on the jurisdiction, and NSA often has the means to circumvent that restriction internationally.

      VPN providers are located in different countries that limit jurisdiction. Some of them keep what you do encrypted in a way that even the VPN owner cannot get into it, including the connection logs, so warrants and other circumventions cannot get to it. The security of VPN companies varies dramatically, despite the hype from many of them. https://thatoneprivacysite.net/

      You can use https://www.startpage.com/ to do google searches without google collecting your search history. startpage serves as a kind of VPN for searches that anyone can routinely connect to. The resulting security depends on how you use the search results.

      VPN protects the identify of where you are coming from. You can also use an encrypted channel to a protected dns name server to translate website names to IP addresses you are going to, including a VPN connection, keeping your destination hidden from monitoring that is local to you, including by your own ISP.

      If you use the same VPN IP address to connect to everything you do, inc ing logins, and/or your own PC is vulnerable to leaks and hacking such as through identifiable or otherwise unsecure browser plugins, then in principle everywhere you go will eventually be linked back to you anyway.

      You need a javascript blocker and secure cookie settings to keep para sites such as google and facebook from tracking you even though did not connect to them directly. They are everywhere. If you use a VPN that allows parasites itself when you connect to it despite their sales pitch of privacy, watch out.

      But you can't stop all of it, just like you can't prevent hacking of your financial information stored elsewhere. Insecurity is built into the internet. Microsoft and other big data companies have for years been developing means of tracking without IP addresses or cookies by identifying unique electrical "signatures" within your pc.

      It never ends and they do what they can get away with. We have been repeatedly told that surveillance is the price we pay for 'free services' on the internet. It isn't true. They do it because they can, whether or not you are paying money. Buy something on the web and chances are the company you bought from is also selling your information.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    I think Big Tech went so far that any regulation would be ineffective, other than wiping them off the Earth then rebuilding according to sane rules.

    They have become a country on their own, thanks to millions of gullible people who must spill the most intimate details of their lives on the net.

    As long as they do that, no amount of regulation would be effective.

    What do we want them to be?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by chad 3 months, 3 weeks ago
      If you don't like what they are don't use them. If you don't want them to have intimate information don't give it to them. Any regulation comes with the permission to use violence to control someone else to achieve what is considered a 'moral end'. The only place for regulation would be to prevent fraud. If the supplier offers a specific product but does not deliver then the consumer has a valid complaint.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        I never give them info, yet they have it. I would love to see violence used on Soros , Gates , Jack Dorsey , Schmidt , Bezos and Zuckerberg.
        Most of these co.s were CIA creations using (our money)
        Enriching those that spread a statist agenda by censoring anti statist messages .They call it “hate speech”.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  exceller 3 months, 3 weeks ago
          I never willingly provide info but they have it, as you said.

          I am not on FB or any other social platform. Recently I switched off Google and purged it from all my searches. Still, I am sure they have a file on me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
          "Most of those companies" were not "CIA creations". Please do not advocate violence against them, it's a crime whether or not you like them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            You make your claim with no evidence I have backed up my claim. Just a typical business meeting .
            https://goo.gl/images/LzqJNk
            Sanctions against North Korea. A number of countries and international bodies have imposed sanctions against North Korea. Currently, sanctions are largely concerned with North Korea's nuclear weapons program and were imposed after its first nuclear test in 2006.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
              Rejecting crackpot conspiracy theories consisting of rationalizing arbitrary assertions and which contradict what is known does not require proving a negative. The bizarre claims that high tech companies with known histories are CIA conspiratorial creations are preposterous. You do not "back up" a claim by citing some crackpot on the internet who said so in rambling concoctions. There is a reason that normal people do not take this stuff seriously (and it's not a CIA conspiracy).

              This has nothing to do with North Korea.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months, 2 weeks ago
                “Crackpot conspiracy theories” your insulting response is right out of the C-A ‘s hand book ...very well done.

                Don’t use critical thinking. I am sure N Korea was just a new market opportunity for Google . Never mind the sanctions. Just think of the wealth that E Schmidt could extract from that prosperous country.

                Your terms of Crackpot , bizarre , preposterous,
                Rambling are very helpful.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 months, 2 weeks ago
                  Rejecting conspiracy theories that the CIA secretly created the high tech industries of Google, Twitter and Facebook for nefarious purposes -- along with the conspiracy theory that the CIA secretly arranged the accusations against Kavanaugh -- is "critical thinking", not another CIA conspiracy theory "right out of their handbook" -- even though Agenda 21 dropped the Handbook instructions out of black helicopters to be sure we would all read it and do as told. To ensure compliance here on this forum, the instructions were hidden between the lines in Atlas Shrugged, too. The novel was provided to Ayn Rand by aliens who came in on the Crash of '47 at Roswell. She picked it up from Area 51.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by chad 3 months, 3 weeks ago
          With dependence on electronics and computers to do daily business it is now nearly impossible to not surrender your data somewhere that it then becomes immediately accessible to all. Because tax money was used to create this and violence is used to impose its use it is nearly impossible to avoid. What many fail to realize is that all programs and apps are mandated to be written with a back door for the government. It doesn't matter if you encrypt if the spies have access to your encryption. It isn't that the technology is flawed, it is the use by flawed slavers (those who would control individuals) that is dangerous.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            The government has so far failed to acquire mandatory 'backdoor' circumventing encryption. There is no such mandate. (But Australia has recently imposed one there.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by chad 3 months, 3 weeks ago
              Although there is not a legal mandate per se programs like Carnivore (from the FBI) and others are implemented and so the demand becomes a mandate, i.e. if you want to write these programs we need access to provide for your security. A little threat goes a long way.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 months, 3 weeks ago
                You wrote that "What many fail to realize is that all programs and apps are mandated to be written with a back door for the government". It isn't true. The FBI does not control what you can write in a program and cannot impose backdoors for government access. They have to hack, sneak and steal like anyone else.

                The FBI used to install its own systems (Carnivore) to eavesdrop on networks, but stopped: NSA is much more comprehensive. They still can't see what is being transmitted inside encrypted data that they eavesdrop on.

                The agencies have not successfully lobbied for new laws requiring 'back doors" for them to circumvent encryption.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 3 months, 3 weeks ago
      “I think Big Tech went so far that any regulation would be ineffective, other than wiping them off the Earth...”
      Sounds like the new post modernist way their activists “solve” their many targeted “systematic problems.”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      You could be right. Even breaking them up like Bell telephone was forced to divide there is not a single guarantee with the way we can store and manipulate data that anything will be truly isolated to one offshoot or another. This is why Soros and other can manipulate things to the degree they do. Society rushed into the tech straight jacket and not those who fastened the belts can do essentially whatever they wish.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 3 months, 2 weeks ago
    Proposition 1 - Humans are basically good.
    When bad stuff happens, it is all due to a few who are manipulating others. The few can be, variously according to your taste, George Soros, bankers, capitalists, Maurice Strong, oil barons, Zionists, mullahs, media moguls, alt-right, far-right, extreme-right, and maybe more.

    2. Proposition - not 1.
    Bad stuff happens for all kinds of reasons, people are mixed, some are evil, some are good, or not, then there in incompetence and indifference.

    Is 1. or 2. right? If you take view 2. events can be considered rationally, you do not have to drill down to get to your ultimate Soros/source.
    Another advantage of taking view 2. it is easier to deal with the world.

    When faced with the facts of real bad behavior by the big new monster tech companies, it is not helpful to say it is a conspiracy. That probably means you are helpless and just a moaner.
    Better to be specific about the bad stuff.
    Then ask, does it break any current law, should there be new laws to control or regulate, and especially for this forum, would such laws and regulations, existing or new, be compatible with Objectivism? Are specific contracts being broken? Are implied contracts being broken? Is there such a thing as an implied contract? Are rights and property being stolen and violated? Are company published policies part of a contract? Can there be a contract without 'consideration'? Does that have to be money?

    The question put by AJA, maybe not a strict Objectivist, but a very fine thinker, is thus a good one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 2 weeks ago
      No, he's not a 'fine thinker" and his religious conservatism is a very long way from Ayn Rand. Almost everyone now knows about at least some of the abuse from Google and Facebook; conservatives follow along and say maybe we should "consider regulation" -- "me too but slower". Better thinking than parroting the Hillsdale writer calling for a "degree of regulation" asks what rights are being violated and how to protect them, not entrenching the abuse through "regulation". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    We should NOT regulate ANYTHING with government. Until someone is damaged, there is no crime and shouldnt be any regulation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
      As written in the article, and gives me pause to go against your assertion (which was mine),

      "Another aspect of the Big Tech revolution that sets it apart is the quantity and precision of amassed data it makes possible. Businesses have always accumulated data on their clients, but the amount and detail of data concentrated in the hands of Big Tech companies are beyond anything previously imagined. And its value increases rather than decreases with quantity: consumption patterns of individuals are more valuable if linked to their location, more valuable still if linked to their health information, and so on. Not only does this data concentration represent an insurmountable barrier for new entrants into the market, it also represents a threat to individual privacy and can even be a threat—as recent data mining and censorship scandals suggest—to the functioning of our democracy."

      By waiting for damage and allowing data to amass we are building an insurmountable foe when they choose to flex their power. As exceller wrote about, its may have already gone to far thwart. Think of the politicians and how much data could already be in big tech hands. How much influence can big tech wield with text, pictures, video, audio, and phone conversations on any person let alone a controlling block of congressmen?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 months, 3 weeks ago
        Your point is well taken. As long as the companies don’t get government power behind them, I think we consumers are safe. We can always choose NOT to buy and we can boycott
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months, 3 weeks ago
          The trouble with the "choose not to buy/participate" stance is that the relationships are so intertwined with a vast amount of companies purchasing and using social media analytics for marking and profit that the consumer has little to no control over where his/her personal, not so personal, medical or financial information goes or how it is used. Our private data is now a commodity peddled by companies on the stock market.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 months, 3 weeks ago
            Good point. I do think that once we use social media, debit cards, bank accounts, and such, our information is out of our control basically.

            Attempts to pass laws will not put the cow back in the barn, just attempt to limit where it goes. Each day, the cow has all day to defeat the limits placed on it, and the cow will eventually outwit those limits one by one.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    It's a great thought experiment. On the one hand, they have abused their public trust. On the other, they are a private corporation and should be able to do what they want.

    I think really all they can be hit for is false advertising. They proclaim that they are non-biased, but then they are forced to admit that they are about as intellectually biased as one can be. Given that, I think all one can reasonably do is to force them to put on all their products and advertising that they are biased so that everyone has full disclosure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    I think it's too late to fix it, they have gone way to far down the rabbit hole. Wish we could just bury it.

    Calling all moral and ethical value creators, maybe we could use the blockchain idea and recreate social media that can't get screwed up and corrupted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo