Big Tech should be adjusted. Here are 4 ways to protect the misinformation sidewalk and our privacy

Recent months have seen signs that the spread of algorithmic hate speech, large misinformation and conspiracy theories Internet platforms has undermined America’s response to the 19-COVID pandemic. It has also increased the political polarization and helped to white supremacy allow organizations. Since the Big Titan technology appear before the Congress, there are growing calls for the adjustment of Facebook, YouTube and others. And finally, some customers are dependent on Internet platforms for voicing concern revenue. StopHateForProfit.org, a campaign of civil rights organizations NAACP organized ADL, change color, Free Press and Common Sense Media, attracted more than 1,100 retailers that for a month or more advertising on Facebook breaks the strengthening of hatred of the protest this platform. To comply with the policy change began when the Federal Trade Commission in a consent decree entered with Facebook, is to prevent the platform from the sharing of user data to third parties without the prior consent almost a decade ago. As we learned with the scandal of Cambridge Analytica, paid lip service to this Decree Facebook consent to a “promise to do better excuse model, the return to business as usual”, which persists to this day. Other platforms, especially Google and Twitter also calling for changes to the business models, partly responsible for the amplification of hate speech, misinformation and conspiracy theories resist. current period of the nation’s self-reflection has expanded coalition calling for change, the addition of civil rights organizations and a growing number of consumers. Politicians and state level and federal regulators to respond. The regulation, which has faced an uphill battle now seems likely. The next step must be to consider the options and compromises. There are at least four areas that need adjustment: security, privacy, competition and honesty. only to co-ordinate with the action of all four political leaders will have no hope of reducing the harm of Internet platforms. Security: The highest priority for the regulation refers to the safety of new technologies. There are two security aspects that need attention: Product development and business models. Until the last decade, technology products generally empowers people who use them. Safety was not an issue. Today, the technology that allows you to put the dominant Internet platform for the company to be risks. At the same time, the idealism of Silicon Valley aggression more Machiavellian. As a result, the business practices in previous eras were harmless were dangerous. For example, generally the technology sector provides products, once they work – what a minimally viable product is known – and leaves quality (and damage) control the end user. This philosophy has worked well in small scale for products with limited functionality. He also worked with Google and Facebook in their early days, but no more. catastrophic failure in new categories such as facial recognition and artificial intelligence were exposed to the danger of release of a new technology, without protective measures. For example, race and gender prejudices, including products for law enforcement found both face detection and AI products. It has as the country with drugs and chemicals learned some industries are working too important unsupervised. As new drugs have to demonstrate new security technologies and the required efficacy (as well as the impartiality) before coming on the market. As businesses, the Internet, create or use of chemical platforms should be responsible for any financial damage, create their products. changing personal responsibility for managers and engineers are important incentives. The second category of security standards for Internet platforms in business models. malicious content are unusually profitable. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter from advertising to monetize the value of which depends on the user’s attention. Platforms maximize algorithms use for reinforcement content, user intervention. hate speech, misinformation and conspiracy theories are particularly engaging – triggers our flight or fight instinct, which forces us to pay attention – so the algorithms increase as most of the content. Other platform tools such as Facebook groups and any platform recommendation engines, increased engagement with malicious content. The platforms must reduce any harmful economic incentive content. They are protected from liability under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the judges of providing blanket immunity for the damage they have caused interpreted by the third-party content. Until a few months ago, Section 230 was untouchable in Congress, but that is no longer the case. Republican Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill that would eliminate certain types of political content from the safe harbor. Vice President Biden has to eliminate Section 230. Neither proposal is perfectly named. A better approach would be to encourage the change, while maintaining the positive characteristics of the section 230, including the protection that provides start-up. Policy makers should algorithmic gain as the reason harmful content pulls me from the mainstream instead of only the corners of the Internet is the goal. You can do this by eliminating the safe haven of section 230, when a different platform selected pieces to be treated differently from content. Reverse chronological order, the original organizational framework for news feeds, would remain a safe haven, so that all the contents treat others the framework itself. But algorithmic gain section 230 do not enjoy protection because it is a platform of choice, rather than the user. This change would not have forced platforms to behave differently, but would give them an incentive to do so. In combination with a guaranteed right of consumer disputes in the event of damage and personal responsibility to follow for managers, it would be an important step on the road to a more secure ecosystem for Internet platforms. Notice: after the scandal of Cambridge Analytica on the radar of policy makers were. The data business developed over decades and much of the government adopted a hands off approach. Companies that claim ownership of all the data that you touch, as well as to use it or to transfer, without limitation the right. Smart phones and the Internet allows monitoring of all human activity, making it possible to capture a complete digital representation – what the activist Tristan Harris calls a voodoo doll of data – of every consumer. purchases by credit card, financial information, employment history, your phone’s location, medical tests and prescriptions, browsing history, social media activity Create all the data that is very personal and in a data market. Marketing and Internet platforms use this data to understand, predict and manipulate our behavior. This is not just advertising. Marketer and platforms also limit the options available to us, without being aware of ourselves. Worse, the data can manipulate our vulnerabilities and capitalize on other people, be used. For example, marketing information from other use to provide that a woman is pregnant before she knows it. Policy makers understand that the status quo leaves consumers vulnerable to tampering, but have struggled to find an effective solution. European Regulation on data protection (GDPR) and California Computer Privacy Act (CCPA) have taken the first steps, but both place the burden on consumers “opt out” of data use. This is annoying, because consumers are not aware of many of the companies that maintain and use their data. A better solution would be to shift the burden for businesses with an “opt-in” requirement, where each holding of the date holds over us would be needed to get our permission before each use or transfer. Brittany Kaiser, Andrew Yang, and others argue that Google, Facebook and others will have to pay to use our data. This idea sounds wonderful, but probably prove disappointing. The platforms are opaque, so that it can be impossible to verify the value obtained by our data. They are defined with a lower price and we will be stuck with it. Even worse, this model fails to recover data out of targeted advertising to capture. That admit it or not, the platforms of the Internet should “own” the data they love them because they would bless their harmful trade practices in exchange for token payments. Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff argued that personal data, such as organs of the body are treated, to buy or sell as a human right, but as a resource. They make a convincing argument that no company should be allowed to manipulate the data voodoo dolls to use our choices. The challenge for regulators is that consumers use to allow the benefit of our data, eliminating that do not. For this reason, “opt-in”, the most practical way to the privacy policy can be. In conjunction with the changes to section 230 you would opt to begin to reduce the spread of malicious content. But it will not be enough. Competition: Competition – or lack thereof – has allowed the creation of alternatives to prevent, attention-based platforms. Google, Facebook and Amazon have scale and leverage network effects to crushing competitors while undermining the autonomy of users, suppliers and communities. Without viable competitor (or control), Internet platforms have no incentive to eliminate their harmful behavior, and consumers have no better place to go. Investors and others seem to fear antitrust case who are not aware, let the story of pro-growth suggests the cartel in technology. Since 1956 Department of Justice consent decree with AT & T, which separated the industry of the telecommunications computer and put the transistors public domain, any big wave trace technology rooted in an antitrust case. The government and state general federal prosecutors have launched a number of antitrust investigations against Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. Most of the public debate on anti-trust revolves around decks to break, but this is only part of the cartel solution, and ideally the final piece. Ideally, the heads of the antitrust policies are the principles of the Sherman, Clayton, and bring platforms Federal Trade Commission Acts compel choose between the OS market and participating in them and revive anti-competitive behavior to suppliers, advertisers and users. If all we do busting Google, Facebook and Amazon continue the undesirable behavior of Internet platforms, but distributed among a dozen players, rather than three. Securities Law: The fourth possibility for adjustment is in securities law. It is recognition of revenue, in particular with regard to the ad networks. The Internet platforms, but especially Google and Facebook, are opaque. Unlike traditional advertising platforms, do not allow marketers and agencies to check their figures, which include both their platforms and networks that ads on other websites. Every marketer knows that counts users, ad views and video views on the Internet be overestimated – and was at least a decade since – but has no reliable data to prove it. If the counts of the users and ad views are valued too high, then the same must be true for revenue to be. According to the law the titles, if knowledge is exaggeration of income over a period of several years material, may result in injury of the crime and possibly jail time for executives. This problem is likely to apply primarily to operators of advertising networks like Google and Facebook. A survey entitled the securities would change incentives for these companies. We should enjoy the good aspects of the internet platforms with much less damage. The platforms were not able to self-control. The future of our democracy, public health, privacy and competition in our economy depends on careful and comprehensive regulatory procedures. In summary, the above tips are only a first step, the scope and impact of Internet platforms and their ability to adapt regulation to ensure the need for further steps. The platforms will fight every step of the way, but their filibuster over the last four years, has cost them the moral high ground. It ‘s our turn now.
copyright Image of Maskot / Getty Images