It's no secret that the digital age is also one fraught with lawmakers trying to keep up with innovation and decide how to regulate tech from some of the largest companies the world has ever seen.
Much like the industrial revolution defined the 19th century, the information and digital revolution defined the last hundred years, and we're still in the thick of it. What happens now with big tech could lay the foundation of the future more than we can fathom.
With a flurry of proposed regulations, it can be a chore to catch up. So we're breaking down several key developments and why they matter.
Facebook Exec. Supports Free Speech Regulation
For nearly a year now, Facebook has taken the world's center stage on privacy issues, data mining, unchecked regulation, fake news and cyberbullying.
Nick Clegg, senior executive of global affairs for Facebook and the former head of the U.K. Liberal Democrat party, said he and Facebook support the move to regulate the media site in order to settle the free speech issue taking hold of the company's monitoring policies.
Clegg said private companies should not be in the business of deciding how to balance free speech with public harm. Recently, lawmakers have pressured tech companies to take down offensive content, such as hate speech, at a faster rate to contain harm and violence insighted by posts on the internet.
Clegg said Facebook and other tech companies are looking for a "sensible way" for the government to regulate content in regard to cyberbullying or fake news. He said it is up to "democratic politicians in the democratic world," to create those rules, rather than Facebook.
Why it matters: For those of us in the United States, this question involves free speech. With platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, etc., where hate speech is frequently reported, along with significant amount of cyberbullying, fake news and violent content,, social media companies have taken it upon themselves to regulate what is allowed on the site based on terms and conditions.
The U.S. government is pushing to say these terms and conditions are too lenient, and allow multitudes of harmful posts and behavior to go unchecked. Clegg wants to put lawmakers in charge of free speech policy, rather than tech companies. Think of it as a universal policy across all our social media platforms.
For example, something that is deemed inappropriate on Facebook would raise the same red flag on Twitter or other platforms. However, instead of violating a company's etiquette and use policies by using hate speech or other misuses of the tech, you'd be breaking the law.
The biggest question I think is, will the government consider stepping in and take a preemptive approach by blocking certain keywords and content from ever being posted or will there be actual consequences for those who post harmful content---and not just being banned from a platform.
Want to Dismantle Big Tech? Change Antitrust Laws
Today's tech company conglomerates are often compared to the monopolies of the industrial age---unchecked and more powerful than ever over the current economy.
However, the current definition and laws regarding antitrust regulation actually opened the door for companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon to take over markets without any room to regulate them. Now, there's a push to redefine those laws, according to a New York Times article.
Antitrust regulation basically comes down to a simple policy: if there's no cost to the consumer, it's perfectly fine and legal. The problem? These services are either free or come at a significantly lower the cost to consumers, but still dominate an entire market, much like a monopoly would.
Scholars claim the definition and laws regarding antitrust regulation should be revisited to take these big tech companies into account. One previous ruling in particular could help make a case for breaking up big tech: Brown Shoe Co. Inc. v United States, which defined an unhealthy concentration in a market.
At the time, Brown Shoe Co. owned 7.2 percent of the country's retail shoe stores, and was broken up as a result. Google today has 92 percent of the world's search market, Facebook lays claim to 70 percent of the social media market and Amazon has roughly 38 percent of the e-commerce market in the U.S., according to NYT.
Why it matters: Antitrust regulation completely changed the country's industrial industry. There's a reason we're not all still using Standard Oil. But Rockefeller has given way to Gates and Bezos, and the laws that were supposed to regulate monopolies have helped give big tech companies room to dominate the market.
If we redefine the antitrust laws, not only could it break up big tech, but it could lead to a significant turn in our economic outlook and what the future of tech looks like.
Competition is what drives companies to outdo their competitors and push themselves to innovate at a quicker pace. If you thought tech was rapidly changing now under these giant tech companies, imagine what the world would look like if we leveled the playing field.
A New Congressional Bill Aims to Eliminate "Political Bias" on Social Media
Earlier, we discussed how lawmakers are pushing to regulate harmful content on sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. However, one senator is taking it a step further by introducing a bill that would strip these social media sites of their "political bias."
It stems from the perception that social media platforms flag or block content more from one side of the political spectrum than the other.
The bill proposes "removing Section 230 from the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which says that big internet publishers that distribute content supplied by their users — think Twitter, YouTube, Facebook — aren’t held liable for the content those users supply," according to this Vox article. The goal is to strip these companies of this protection and only restore it once the tech companies can prove "they aren't favoring one end of the political spectrum."
Why it matters: This goes back to the free speech issue we unpacked earlier, but with a twist on political bias rather than actual harm. The bill proposed is a driver to monitor and regulate tech companies for political bias that must be proven to a committee from the Federal Trade Commission.
These regulators, appointed by the sitting president, could introduce their own partisan motivations in determining if a tech company has political bias and revoke its liability protection. If this bill were to become a law, it could be a driving factor for more clear descriptions on how these social media sites decide whether to remove and censor content.
On the other side of that coin, some platforms might significantly pull back on their content to avoid the liability. The bill could change the way we use these sites, which continue to serve as a breeding ground for political discussion.
California Passes Data Privacy Law
Another concern for users and lawmakers regarding big tech is the sale of personal data. Following the Cambridge Analytica scandal and news of other tech companies relying heavily on targeted advertising and the sale of customer data, California unanimously passed the California Consumer Privacy Act last year, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020.
The law will force tech companies based in the state to seriously "change the way they collect, handle, and share data on Californians. And the effects will spread everywhere," according to this Barron's article.
The law would make it so that companies would have to disclose all the digital data they are collecting about you, the right to tell a company they cannot sell your information to third parties, the right to delete any of the data you've posted and the right to sue these companies that collect your data and experience a data breach.
The law would also prevent these companies from discriminating against customers who do not allow them to sell their data, the right to know who they are selling this data to and their purpose and other protections for the consumer.
Why it matters: A large majority of user concern in regard to these tech companies is personal information. In the age of hackers and security breaches, users are concerned about what information is out there, who has it and how it could affect them.
Given that California is the frontrunner in this change for privacy regulation and a majority of these tech giants are headquartered in the state, it could seriously affect how these companies earn money---more so if it kicks off a wave of other states adopting similar legislation.
The Barrons post sites several tech company lawyers are fighting the law and threaten that it could prevent these companies from offering their services for free anymore, given the blow it would give to their advertising revenue. Liability would also be exposed for consumers to sue should their data be leaked, like in the Cambridge Analytica case.
