What is the correct position for Facebook? It depends on Facebook, you’re talking about.
Washington foot Mark Zuckerberg’s “tour of apology,” triggered by a Facebook Cambridge the analyst scandal, saw intense two day lawmakers grilled Facebook founder on the scale platform mounting privacy issues, its role in shaping the global democratic process, and what he does to solve their many woes.
In a joint Tuesday meeting of the Senate and the Senate Commerce, science and transportation committees, lawmakers covers a wide range of issues. But none has been a more holistic understanding of the problems and challenges facing Facebook — and who is behind its regulation than one exchange between Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Zuckerberg.
Graham tried angle Zuckerberg whether Facebook Is a monopoly. In the middle of this line of questioning, Graham said, “will you accept the rules?”
“I think the real question is, as the Internet becomes increasingly important in people’s lives,” Zuckerberg said, “Is that correct position?”
The question of what the “correct” position for Facebook can be very challenging. To understand why, a quick look at the second day of hearings can be useful. Zuckerberg got up the Wednesday before the energy and house Commerce Committee, where Chairman Greg Walden (R-I) asked him: “Facebook Is a media company?”
“I think we were a technology company,” Zuckerberg said.
Walden continued, asking Zuckerberg if Facebook is a financial institution.
“I don’t think we need to be a financial institution,” Zuckerberg said, adding: “although you are right, we provide the means for people to send money.”
Series Walden’s questions, said, the main problem with the definition of “right” adjustment for the company as massive as Facebook. The definition of how Facebook should be regulated, you must know whether you regulate it as a media company, it company, or something else altogether.
Facebook may face regulation under laws that already apply to traditional media companies — if it were treated as a media company
If we think about regulating Facebook as a media company, or even in Publishing, most of the variation subject to the rules and principles which have existed for many years.
For example, traditional media companies must adhere to a set of rules, established by the Federal election Commission, when it comes to disclosing what organization is sponsoring a paid advertising campaign. These rules were adopted recently, in Facebook and other social media platforms, through honest ads proposed a law that would require Facebook to disclose who pays for political advertising on its platform and require participants to declare their agreement with each campaign Ad posted on their behalf.
Facebook recently promised to abide by fair advertising act even before it comes to a vote is a good thing, since Congress probably would not have sorted the order of application of its provisions to Facebook until after the midterm elections.
There is another good reason to avoid fixing the Act of honest ads for the law, which brings us to the main problem with regulating Facebook as a media company: it is a technical company.
Regulating Facebook as a media company can violate the basic principles of the Internet but to regulate it as a tech company can be even harder
There is one big problem with an honest act ads. If Facebook was officially held responsible for how third-party ads published in its platform, a position directly contrary to what is basically the Internet version of the biblical law: section 230 of the communications act of 1996 of decency.
This rule says that the publishers and providers are not responsible for what users do on their websites. While controversial legal problems can have a negative impact on her defense, she is still the primary governing principle of the Internet.
Section 230 has traditionally upheld in the judicial system when it comes to holding companies like Google and Facebook responsible for the content of advertising on their platforms. So to get around to it, honest Advertising Law must create the exception in section 230.
Exceptions to section 230 really exist, and it is possible that the site loses its protection under the law. But for the most part, it has remained dominant for over two decades, and many advocates of Internet freedom argue that the resolution of any exceptions to section 230, no matter how good the intentions, is a dangerous precedent.
So, if we consider Facebook as an it company, as Zuckerberg says, and not as a media company? Well, in that case, many opportunities to regulate Facebook involves going into new territory for legislators — mostly because lawmakers don’t seem to understand the technical intricacies of Facebook well enough to regulate it.
Although it is arguable that this question is irrelevant when it comes to carrying out Zuckerberg is responsible for the way he has always run his company, it is necessary for legislators to develop a deep understanding of the technical culture of the person before it passes a reform that might be detrimental to Internet freedom. For example, recently the Congress demonstrated with the highly controversial package FOSTA/SESTA bill, it has a tendency to make sweeping, high-level reform with the potential to damage the freedom of the Internet and infrastructure.
In case of problems related to Facebook, It’s the last form of the regulatory impact needed. What we need, as writers, as Zeynep Tufekci and Roger Maknami, eloquently argued, is a system of regulatory processes, reporting and empower technology companies to create tools responsibly.
Ideally, such processes could not deal with only the issues whether the data is produced ethically, with full consent of the user, and that data that is aggregated from an ethical point of view and applied in scale so as not to cause unexpected, wide harm. (An example of an unforeseen danger, then the data collected and analyzed on a scale, see the recent fiasco in which Strava fitness app accidentally discovered the location of a secret government military bases).
Another important issue that Congress barely touched during his two-day hearings in which Zuckerberg is an ethical question, which is haunting Silicon valley: we build predictive algorithms using models of transparency, accountability and quick fix?
All these questions are increasingly faced platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, and those that are tech evangelists, like Tristan Harris more effort to inform consumers about. But they do not find their way into conversations on Capitol hill that focused on outcomes rather than processes.
Any legislation, which, in turn, focuses on results, not on maintaining accountability at different levels for how we build the network, could potentially wind fine a good part of the Internet is not yet able to prevent a bad Prime.
There are other management options for Facebook, but none inclusive
There are two main areas for regulation of Facebook. The first involves the regulation of online privacy in General, not attempt to regulate the most of what Facebook does as a company. This is the way Europe acted with the recent adoption of a radical reform of data privacy. Facebook has made numerous changes in accordance with the European legislation, and promised to make these changes available to all users.
Another way involves treating Facebook as a monopoly and regulate it using existing antitrust laws. Supporters treat Facebook and other tech giants like Google, Amazon and Apple, and Microsoft, as a monopoly claim that these companies not only monopolized competition in the technology sector, but also promoted their own products and services while providing information for the audience. They also claim that these companies monopolized the political and cultural discourse, as well as having a huge impact on the way information is accessed online.
Antitrust laws, that can block absorption or a group of such giant technology companies to split into different companies with different roles and functions, but only if strict Directive known as the consumer welfare standard, which determines whether consumers are actively prevented the presence of these monopolies, can be met.
Europe was quick to hold these companies more stringent standards. In addition to a stringent new set of data privacy laws, it is also liable to pay a penalty in the amount of $ 2.7 billion in Google last year in the first antitrust case in the EU. But us lawmakers are not traditionally in a hurry to join the fight where it comes to Facebook, perhaps because of difficulties determining how to regulate technology companies is large.
As a rule, us lawmakers will use the consent decrees — in fact, the settlements that must be approved by the court to argue statements from companies such as Facebook. But it doesn’t always work. Currently, the Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether Facebook violated a 2011 agreement it signed with the FTC after the previous line about users ‘ privacy.
The lack of consistency in the laws of the United States that are not monopolistic actions is also questionable, especially in the Internet space, where the courts often demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of how the Internet works. For example, in the main current of Affairs between Google and Oracle, the Federal court of appeal recently ruled in favor of Oracle, which distorts both the information on the Internet freely exchanged, and that threatens, in terms of development, innovation and Internet entrepreneurship.
It is this kind of legal interference in the network is not needed, and it certainly doesn’t generate confidence in the government to make high level decisions on the reform of the Silicon valley.
Yet, with regard to Facebook, the government seems committed to doing everything possible to curb the tech giant — though it is perhaps already too late. The feeling seems to be that anything is better than letting Facebook continue acts of the police. That may eventually mean we have worse Internet policy before we make it better, but hopefully it will also mean that, ultimately, all of Silicon valley’s Internet giants will stand in front of their users.
Sourse: vox.com
