![\"\"](\"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
WASHINGTON: Break up Big Tech<\/a>? How about shrinking the tech companies' shield against liability in cases where the content they push to users causes harm? Or creating a new regulator to strictly oversee the industry?
Those ideas have captured official attention in the U.S., Europe, U.K. and Australia as controversy has enveloped Facebook - which on Thursday renamed itself Meta - Google<\/a>, Amazon<\/a> and other giants. Revelations of deep-seated problems surfaced by former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen<\/a>, buttressed by a trove of internal company documents, have lent momentum to legislative and regulatory efforts.
But while regulators are still considering major moves such as breaking up some companies or limiting their acquisitions, the most realistic changes may be more tangible and less grandly ambitious. And also the kind of thing people might actually see popping up in their social feeds.
So lawmakers are getting creative as they introduce a slew of bills intended to take Big Tech down a peg. One bill proposes an \"eraser button\" that would let parents instantly delete all personal information collected from their children or teens. Another proposal bans specific features for kids under 16, such as video auto-play, push alerts, \"like\" buttons and follower counts. Also being floated is a prohibition against collecting personal data from anyone aged 13 to 15 without their consent. And a new digital \"bill of rights\" for minors that would similarly limit gathering of personal data from teens.
For online users of all ages, personal data is paramount. It's at the heart of the social platforms' lucrative business model: harvesting data from their users and using it to sell personalized ads intended to pinpoint specific consumer groups. Data is the financial lifeblood for a social network giant valued at $1 trillion like Facebook. Er, Meta. Advertising sales drive nearly all its revenue, which reached about $86 billion last year.
That means the proposed legislation targeting personal data collected from young people could hit the bottom line of the social media companies. On Tuesday, executives of YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat offered endorsements in principle during a congressional hearing on child safety, but wouldn't commit to support already proposed legislation. Instead, they offered boilerplate Washington lobbyist-speak, saying they look forward to working with Congress on the matter. Translation: They want to influence the proposals.
Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., proposed the two bills that address protection of kids online. They say they're hearing more and more stories of teens overdosing on opioids obtained online or who died by suicide when their depression or self-hatred was magnified by social media
Among all of Haugen's numerous condemnations of Facebook, her disclosure of internal company research showing that use of the Instagram photo-sharing app appeared to harm some teens appears to have resonated most with the public.
When it comes to kids, Republican and Democratic lawmakers - hopelessly divided over perceived political bias and hate speech in social media - are in solid agreement that something m.ust be done, and quickly. \"One thing that unites Democrats and Republicans is 'Won't someone please think of the children,'\" said Gautam Hans, a technology lawyer and free-speech expert and professor at Vanderbilt University. \"It's very sellable on a bipartisan basis.\"
In the U.K., efforts toward tougher rules to protect social media users, especially younger ones, are farther along. Members of the U.K. Parliament asked Haugen for guidance on how to improve the British online safety legislation. She appeared in London before a parliamentary committee on Monday, warning members that time is running out to regulate social media companies that use artificial intelligence to push \"engaging\" content to users.
European Union privacy and competition regulators have been far more aggressive than their U.S. counterparts in bridling the tech giants. They have levied multibillion-dollar fines on some of the companies and adopted sweeping new rules in recent years. The U.K. established a new regulator for Facebook and Google<\/a> this spring.
U.S. regulators only kicked into gear in 2019, when the Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5 billion, and YouTube $170 million in separate cases for alleged privacy violations. Late last year, the U.S. Justice Department and a number of states filed landmark antitrust suits against Google over market dominance in online search. The FTC and several states brought a parallel antitrust action against Facebook accusing it of abusing its market power to crush smaller competitors.
Beyond the child protection measures, U.S. legislators from both parties have floated a vast number of proposals designed to crack down on social media; target anti-competitive practices by Big Tech companies, possibly ordering breakups; and to get at the algorithms the tech platforms deploy to determine what shows up on users' feeds.
All these proposals face a heavy lift toward final enactment.
The Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, for instance, was introduced by senior House Democrats roughly a week after Haugen testified as to how social media algorithms push extreme content to users and inflame anger to boost user \"engagement.\" The bill would hold social media companies responsible by removing their shield against liability, known as Section 230, for tailored recommendations to users deemed to cause harm.
Some experts who support stricter regulation of social media say the legislation could have unintended consequences. It doesn't make clear enough which specific algorithmic behaviors would lead to loss of the liability protection, they suggest, making it hard to see how it would work in practice and leading to wide disagreement over what it might actually do.
For instance, Paul Barrett, who teaches a seminar in law, economics and journalism at New York University, calls the bill \"very sweeping\" in ways its authors may not understand, and suggests it could shred the liability shield almost entirely. But Jared Schroeder, a First Amendment scholar at Southern Methodist University, said that while \"there's a noble purpose\" behind the bill, constitutional free-speech guarantees would likely stymie any attempt to sue social-media platforms.
A spokesperson for Meta, which owns the Facebook service, declined to comment Friday on legislative proposals. In a statement, the company said it has long advocated for updated regulations, but provided no specifics.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg<\/a> - make that, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg - has suggested changes that would only give internet<\/a> platforms legal protection if they can prove that their systems for identifying illegal content are up to snuff. That requirement, however, might be more difficult for smaller tech companies and startups to meet, leading critics to charge that it would ultimately work in Facebook's favor.
<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":87426869,"title":"Most Indian firms to increase cybersecurity budget in 2022: PwC survey","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/most-indian-firms-to-increase-cybersecurity-budget-in-2022-pwc-survey\/87426869","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":87431540,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"An \"eraser button\"? Focused ideas could help bridle Big Tech","synopsis":"Break up Big Tech? How about shrinking the tech companies' shield against liability in cases where the content they push to users causes harm? Or creating a new regulator to strictly oversee the industry? Those ideas have captured official attention in the U. S., Europe, U. K. and Australia as controversy has enveloped Facebook - which on Thursday renamed itself Meta - Google, Amazon and other giants.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/an-eraser-button-focused-ideas-could-help-bridle-big-tech","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":127,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":552000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"AP","artdate":"2021-10-31 18:04:42","lastupd":"2021-10-31 18:07:30","breadcrumbTags":["google","big tech","Internet","International","tech news","microsoft","Amazon","mark zuckerberg","frances haugen","meta - google"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/an-eraser-button-focused-ideas-could-help-bridle-big-tech"}}" data-authors="[" "]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2021-10-31" data-index="article_1">
- Telecom乐动扑克News
- 5分钟读
一个“橡皮擦”按钮?大型科技股集中思想可以帮助马缰绳
分手大科技?如何减少科技公司的防御责任的情况下内容推送给用户造成损害?或创建一个新的监管机构,严格监督这个行业呢?这些想法在美国引起了官方的注意。,Europe, U. K. and Australia as controversy has enveloped Facebook - which on Thursday renamed itself Meta - Google, Amazon and other giants.
读到
华盛顿:分手大型科技股吗?如何减少科技公司的防御责任的情况下内容推送给用户造成损害?或创建一个新的监管机构,严格监督这个行业呢?
这些想法在美国引起了官方的注意,Europe, U.K. and Australia as controversy has enveloped Facebook - which on Thursday renamed itself元——谷歌,亚马逊和其他巨头。披露前Facebook产品经理的深层次问题浮出水面Frances Haugen受到大量公司内部文件,放贷势头立法和监管的努力。
虽然监管机构仍在考虑等重大举措打破一些公司或限制他们的收购,最现实的变化可能更切实的和更少的隆重雄心勃勃。还有的人可能会看到出现在他们的社会。
所以议员们创造性,因为他们介绍一系列法案旨在大型科技股的威风。一个法案提出了一个“橡皮擦”按钮,会让父母立即删除所有个人信息收集的儿童或青少年。另一个提议禁止16岁以下孩子的具体特性,如视频自动播放”,提醒,“喜欢”按钮和追随者。也被提出禁止收集个人数据从13到15岁的人没有他们的同意。和一个新的数字为未成年人“权利法案”,将从青少年同样限制收集的个人数据。
对于所有年龄段的在线用户,个人数据是至关重要的。是社交平台的核心利润丰厚的商业模式:收集数据从他们的用户和使用它来销售个性化广告旨在确定特定的消费群体。数据的金融命脉是社交网络巨头Facebook价值1万亿美元。呃,元。广告销售推动几乎所有收入,去年达到约860亿美元。
这意味着立法提议针对年轻人的个人收集的数据可能达到社交媒体公司的底线。周二,高管的YouTube, TikTok和Snapchat代言原则上在国会听证会上儿童安全,但不会承诺支持已经提出立法。相反,他们提供样板华盛顿lobbyist-speak,说他们期待与国会共同努力。翻译:他们想要影响的建议。
参议员Edward Markey,上层。,和Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., proposed the two bills that address protection of kids online. They say they're hearing more and more stories of teens overdosing on opioids obtained online or who died by suicide when their depression or self-hatred was magnified by social media
在所有Haugen的众多Facebook的谴责,她披露公司内部研究表明使用Instagram的照片共享应用程序出现伤害一些青少年似乎与公众最引起了共鸣。
当谈到孩子,共和党和民主党议员——绝望地分歧政治偏见和仇恨言论在社会媒体——在固体协议,m。科大做,很快。“团结民主党和共和党的一件事是不会有人请想想孩子,”“Gautam汉斯说,律师和言论自由的技术专家和范德比尔特大学教授。“这是非常在两党合作的基础上的。”
在英国,efforts toward tougher rules to protect social media users, especially younger ones, are farther along. Members of the U.K. Parliament asked Haugen for guidance on how to improve the British online safety legislation. She appeared in London before a parliamentary committee on Monday, warning members that time is running out to regulate social media companies that use artificial intelligence to push "engaging" content to users.
欧盟隐私和竞争监管机构一直在远比美国同行更激进的缰绳科技巨头。他们有数十亿美元的罚款征收的一些公司和近年来广泛采用新规则。英国建立了新的Facebook和监管机构谷歌今年春天。
美国监管机构只踢到齿轮在2019年,美国联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission) Facebook罚款50亿美元,1.7亿美元和YouTube在单独的情况下因涉嫌侵犯隐私。去年年底,美国司法部和许多州提起了里程碑式的反垄断诉讼谷歌在网络搜索市场的主导地位。联邦贸易委员会对Facebook和几个州一个平行的反垄断行动指控其滥用市场势力镇压规模较小的竞争对手。
超出了儿童保护措施,美国两党议员已经提出大量的提案旨在打击社会媒体;大型科技公司目标反竞争行为,可能订购分手;和得到的算法技术平台部署来确定出现在用户的提要。
所有这些建议对最终制定面临严峻考验。
司法对恶意算法行为,例如,介绍了高级众议院民主党人大约一周后Haugen作证如何社交媒体算法把极端内容用户和激起的愤怒来提高用户“订婚”。The bill would hold social media companies responsible by removing their shield against liability, known as Section 230, for tailored recommendations to users deemed to cause harm.
一些专家支持更严格的监管社交媒体表示,这项立法可能产生意想不到的后果。它不足够明确哪些具体算法的行为将导致损失的责任保护,他们建议,使它很难看到如何工作在实践中,导致广泛的分歧实际上可能会做什么。
例如,保罗·巴雷特教授一个研讨会在法律上,纽约大学经济学和新闻,称该法案“非常广泛”的方式其作者可能不理解,并建议它可以分解盾几乎完全责任。但贾里德·施罗德,第一修正案南卫理公会大学的学者说,“有一个高尚的目的”背后的法案,宪法言论自由的保障可能会阻挠任何试图起诉社交媒体平台。
拥有Facebook的发言人元服务,周五立法提案拒绝置评。在一份声明中,该公司表示,长期以来一直主张法规更新,但没有提供细节。
Facebook首席执行官马克•扎克伯格——让元CEO马克·扎克伯格——建议改变,只会给互联网平台的法律保护,如果他们能证明他们的系统识别非法内容是正常的。要求,然而,可能更困难的小型科技公司和创业公司见面,领导批评人士将最终在Facebook的支持工作。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动