- cross-posted to:
- politics
The proposed Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act by Senators Warren and Graham seeks to create a new federal commission to regulate large tech platforms. However, the bill contains many problematic provisions that threaten free speech and internet freedom. It would require platforms to reveal content moderation policies, provide notice and appeals for all moderation decisions including spam, mitigate “emotional harms” without defining them, and even allow revoking operating licenses for “egregious misconduct.” Many organizations have endorsed the bill without carefully considering its negative impacts on free expression. In summary, while well-intentioned, the bill’s vague and overbroad regulations threaten to chill online speech rather than effectively protect consumers.
You must log in or register to comment.
It is absolutely understandable to me that the article is wary of new regulations and laws but in this case I‘m in hard opposition.
According to the article „companies should be more transparent but a law is not the way to do it.“ (not verbatim)
Also, it claims that people would be rightfully outraged if fox news (or any other major TV station) would have to give up editorial secrets due to oversight, but social media companies should.
All leading media should have government oversight as it is responsible for all major „opinions“ by shaping what they show and what they don’t.
People like the author need to understand that if there is no law in a highly volatile/competitive field, then it becomes the wild west or „survival of the fittest“ which in this case means which company has more money.
Although it is critical that we stay vigilant, focusing on „keeping the government from controlling megacorps“ is not the way.
These megacorporations (which includes buffet media afaik) are essentially states in terms of wealth, ownership, complexity and influence. We can not allow states to exist in countries that are not bound by the same laws as other government entities.
Therefore I think (albeit the formation of new committees that bothers me a bit) that more control over megacorps is inherently good and should be boosted.
Better editorial and moderation transparency are good. I support that. I’m worried about the “mitigating emotional harm” part of the bill. This could mean that the fringes of society are allowed to use coded language and dog whistles but people aren’t allowed to call them out (for example). Information about transitioning could be deemed “emotionally harmful”. I’m skeptical about the government’s ability to define “emotionally harmful” content, especially in the current political climate. It seems too broad.
Yes, that makes sense. Thank you for elaborating. Still, at this point I am scared of both, the political bs and the megacorps running the show. Feels like the best solution is reform political system and have it reign in the corps.