Big Tech calls for ‘regulation’ but is fuzzy on the details

Big tech update

The writer is the Director of International Policy at Stanford University’s Cyber ​​Policy Center.

In the realm of Big Tech, conflicting realities exist in parallel. Facebook executives are simultaneously pushing for the top US regulators, while at the same time calling for more “regulation.” Federal Trade Commission Chairman Lina Khan,was denied. Similarly, the hiring of new tech lobbyists and lawyers surged last month in the light of recent bold statements from CEOs such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Alphabet’s Sundar Pichai.

Obviously, a call for or against “technology regulation” doesn’t make much sense in itself. Ironically, lobbyists have been working outdoors for years in the opposite framework of “regulation hinders innovation.” After the idea took hold, it effectively paralyzed democrats who didn’t want to be seen as archaic or interfere with exciting technology and digital opportunities.

It’s not just about promoting “regulatory” support, it’s also clear when you look at what a company is actually doing.Microsoft President Brad Smith supports the regulation of facial recognition systems, but the company disagrees Privacy law In Illinois.Created by Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Supervisory Board I want to avoid independent surveillance.

“There is no doubt that artificial intelligence needs to be regulated,” said Pichai of Alphabet last year. “The question is how best to approach this.” Well, exactly. The next time you hear Big Tech leaders asking for regulation, try to understand what that means. Algorithmic decision monitoring, automated taxation to compensate for unemployment, or transparency of merger management and content moderation. By zooming in on the trade-offs with the expected results, the difficult choices between different interests become clearer. Similarly, politicians who have vague promises to regulate technology should consider each other in detail.

In fact, the false dichotomy of regulation and no regulation ignores the benefits tech companies have enjoyed as a result of certain regulatory interventions. For example, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of the United States provides a technology platform. Significant exemption from liability For third-party content. Antitrust rules, and even data protection requirements, all provide a favorable operating environment for big tech companies.

SMEs, on the other hand, often struggle with competition and compliance, especially when these measures can be very costly. Regulatory prisoners not only undermine confidence in legitimate policymaking, but also raise barriers to entry and further strengthen Big Tech’s dominance.

Another generalization for shattering is an attempt to equate what different governments are doing with technology surveillance and law. The worst examples of government intervention are easily used to discourage constructive policy decisions, without specifically explaining the consequences that the regulatory process needs to optimize and the context in which they are determined. Will be done. Speech and data censorship by the Chinese government is unfairly compared to effective efforts by the liberal government. Without distinguishing between democratically legitimate and authoritarian interventions, the worst cases hinder best efforts.

To understand whether corporate leaders are really embracing regulations, whether they support updated competitive requirements, how often they abandon business opportunities to minimize human rights abuses, proper recruitment and enforcement. Make sure you are ready to take responsibility for neglecting. Cybersecurity standards.

It’s time for the debate on regulatory technology to reach a more sophisticated and substantive level.

Big Tech calls for ‘regulation’ but is fuzzy on the details Source link Big Tech calls for ‘regulation’ but is fuzzy on the details

Related Articles

Back to top button