Connect with us

Big Tech

Amy Klobuchar Reiterates Need for Funding Agencies to Handle Big Tech

‘These companies know how many resources they [agencies] have,’ Klobuchar said.

Published

on

Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota

WASHINGTON, September 16, 2021 – At a virtual conference hosted by Politico on Wednesday, Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, repeated what she sees as a need to equip federal agencies with adequate resources to deal with privacy issues related to Big Tech – even as it battles on parallel issues like antitrust.

Klobuchar and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced bipartisan legislation in May that would “ensure that antitrust authorities have the resources they need to protect consumers.” The Democrats also introduced funding avenues in their reconciliation bill for the Federal Trade Commission to tackle the myriad of issues related to Big Tech, including data privacy concerns and big mergers.

“It is a major priority and has been of mine to get privacy money into the FTC,” Klobuchar said Wednesday. “That should not come at the expense of the major case they just refiled against Facebook and the antitrust work that has to be done.

Last month, the FTC, under chair Lina Khan, filed an amended complaint against Facebook for alleged anticompetitive behavior, arguing that Facebook “holds monopoly power” and engaged in “anticompetitive acquisitions.”

And earlier this month, four members of Congress asked the Department of Justice to dig into allegations that Facebook and Google colluded to ensure that neither hindered each other’s performance in the digital advertising space, which both combined dominate.

“These companies know how many resources they [agencies] have,” Klobuchar added. “We’re in a merger mania right now, both with the DOJ antitrust and the FTC. And they even in the past had to pause some of their review of mergers because of resource issues. And they can’t just take on all tech and not do anything else when it comes to antitrust, and that’s why I’m such a big believer that we must better fund that part of both of these agencies or we are going to make a mockery of our antitrust laws.”

Klobuchar also said the big technology companies have also put up resistance to calls for national privacy legislation, and only came around when the states began implementing their own rules. She noted that they don’t want a “patchwork quilt” of different laws, which would make it too complex to follow.

Klobuchar’s track record

Klobuchar has introduced, and has supported, a number of bills that would target big technology companies. In July, she introduced a bill that would remove Section 230 liability protections from social media platforms if they allow misinformation on vaccines to permeate. She also helped introduce legislation that would amend Section 230 to hold companies accountable for information on their platform that they get paid for.

Klobuchar was among three Democratic lawmakers who also introduced legislation that would ban app store operators from requiring app providers to use their in-app payment systems. That was before a U.S. district judge handed down a judgment that found Apple committed no anticompetition violations against the giant, after it banned Epic Games’ Fortnite from its app store because it circumvented the app store’s fees.

Social Media

Americans Should Look to Filtration Software to Block Harmful Content from View, Event Hears

One professor said it is the only way to solve the harmful content problem without encroaching on free speech rights.

Published

on

Photo of Adam Neufeld of Anti-Defamation League, Steve Delbianco of NetChoice, Barak Richman of Duke University, Shannon McGregor of University of North Carolina (left to right)

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2022 – Researchers at an Internet Governance Forum event Thursday recommended the use of third-party software that filters out harmful content on the internet, in an effort to combat what they say are social media algorithms that feed them content they don’t want to see.

Users of social media sites often don’t know what algorithms are filtering the information they consume, said Steve DelBianco, CEO of NetChoice, a trade association that represents the technology industry. Most algorithms function to maximize user engagement by manipulating their emotions, which is particularly worrisome, he said.

But third-party software, such as Sightengine and Amazon’s Rekognition – which moderate what users see by bypassing images and videos that the user selects as objectionable – could act in place of other solutions to tackle disinformation and hate speech, said Barak Richman, professor of law and business at Duke University.

Richman argued that this “middleware technology” is the only way to solve this universal problem without encroaching on free speech rights. He suggested Americans in these technologies – that would be supported by popular platforms including Facebook, Google, and TikTok – to create the buffer between harmful algorithms and the user.

Such technologies already exist in limited applications that offer less personalization and accuracy in filtering, said Richman. But the market demand needs to increase to support innovation and expansion in this area.

Americans across party lines believe that there is a problem with disinformation and hate speech, but disagree on the solution, added fellow panelist Shannon McGregor, senior researcher at the Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life at the University of North Carolina.

The conversation comes as debate continues regarding Section 230, a provision in the Communications Decency Act that protects technology platforms from being liable for content their users post. Some say Section 230 only protects “neutral platforms,” while others claim it allows powerful companies to ignore user harm. Experts in the space disagree on the responsibility of tech companies to moderate content on their platforms.

Continue Reading

Big Tech

Surveillance Capitalism a Symptom of Web-Dependent Companies, Not Ownership

Former Google executive Richard Whitt critiqued Ben Tarnoff’s argument in ‘Internet for the People’ during Gigabit Libraries discussion.

Published

on

Photo of Ben Tarnoff, co-founder of magazine Logic and the author of “Internet for the People”

July 15, 2022 – A former Google executive  pushed back against a claim that the privatization of broadband infrastructure has created the world’s current data and privacy concerns, instead suggesting that it’s the companies that rely on the web that have helped fuel the problem.

Richard Whitt, president of technology non-profit GLIA Foundation and former employee of Google, argued that while the World Wide Web is rife with problems, the internet infrastructure underlying the web remains fundamentally sound.

Whitt was responding to claims made by Ben Tarnoff, a journalist and founder of Logic Magazine, at the Libraries in Response event on July 8. Tarnoff argued – as he does in his recent book, “Internet for the People” – that the privatization of broadband infrastructure in the 1990s has allowed the use and commodification of personal data for profit to flourish (known as surveillance capitalism).

The discussion took place during the Gigabit Libraries Network’s series “Libraries in Response.” The session was titled “If the Internet is Broken, How Can Libraries Help Fix it?”

Privatization, Tarnoff claims, has raised such issues as polarization of ideologies and the “annihilation of our privacy.” As a result, he said, the American people are losing trust in tech companies that “rule the internet.”

Whitt responded that the internet is working well based on the protocols, standardized rules for routing and addressing packets of data to travel across networks, derived at the onset of the internet.

The World Wide Web, a system built on the internet to allow communication using easy-to-understand graphical user interfaces, allowed for browsers and other applications to emerge, which have since perpetuated surveillance capitalism into the governing approach of the web that it is today, said Whitt, suggesting it’s not ownership of the hard infrastructure that’s the problem.

The advertising market that encourages surveillance extraction, analysis and manipulation is, and will continue to be, profitable, Whitt continued.

The discussion follows a Pew Research Center study that found that only half of Americans believe tech companies have a positive effect in 2019 compared to a seventy-one percent in 2015.

Continue Reading

Big Tech

American Innovation and Choice Online Act Has Panelists Divided on Small Business Impact

The bill is intended to prohibit product preferences on tech platforms, with some saying it could harm small companies dependent on those platforms.

Published

on

Panel at CSIS event on Thursday

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2022 – Observers are still divided about the effect on small business of legislation that is intended to keep large technology platforms from giving preference to their own products over others.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted experts last month to discuss the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which was introduced in January. The event heard both support for the bill, as well as concern that it could negatively impact smaller businesses that rely on the larger platforms.

“Existing antitrust law is not going to be enough to rein in the power of the largest tech platforms,” Charlotte Slaiman, competition policy director at public interest group Public Knowledge, said, adding the AICOA is very important for small business competition “to get a fair shot.”

“Fundamentally this is a really important…for competition because this protects small companies that are potential competitors against one of these large platforms,” she added.

Krisztian Katona, vice president of global competition and regulatory policy at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, however, said that after performing a cost-benefit analysis of AICOA, he expects the legislation will hurt business competition.

He said that the legislation would increase operating costs for smaller companies and force these companies to reduce the cost of their services. He predicts that close to 100 companies by 2030 would be negatively impacted by the legislation if it becomes law.

Others agree with Katona. A report in March by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council said small business owners felt the AICOA could be detrimental to them, saying it could increase prices. Meanwhile Michael Petricone, senior vice president of the Consumer Technology Association, said in June that small businesses would be affected the most by big tech regulation because they depend on those platforms.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending