Finally, we have arrived two-team partnership on Big Tech, yay everyone! That’s the line that journalists and he says again business platform. “Facebook Whistleblower Reignites Bipartisan Support for Curbing Big Tech,” a Economic Times trumpet last week after Frances Haugen’s Senate testimony on Facebook. “Legislators Send Big Tech Message Against Opponents,” Newsweek wrote the next day. For more than a year, but especially after hearing last week in the Senate in the United States, journalists have been saying that Democrats and Republicans are setting aside their long-standing disagreements over professionalism.
But beyond their successful titles, much more in writing Notice (often impulsively) that “unity” is just an idea one the kind of Big Tech legislation required. This is where the concept of “middle ground” is distorted, and where the danger in these terms lies.
It is true that in the last few years American lawmakers have spoken openly about Silicon Valley’s professional giants, their business and operations, and their markets. However just accept this china it has to happen, and in itself, it is as hypocritical as the bipartisan alliance finds. Elected representatives of the two parties disagree on what is certain, why something should be done, and the problems at the very beginning. All of these things make the rules in Congress and the way to achieve them.
On top of that, journalists who differentiate between politics and professionalism only threaten to repeat the problems of the past few decades, while the perception of technology as non-political helps regulators and people to ignore the dangers ahead of them. Excessive research into the complex road to real, rigid rules — and the increasing risks to democracy (and the democratic technical rules) are coming from within.
For decades, generosity Democrats from the United States to France to Australia always label the internet as a child of a free, secure, and courageous democracy. Especially the US leaders, from Bill Clinton Jell-O-to-a-wall talking in 2000 for the so-called State department internet goals of 2010, praised the power of the hijacking website worldwide. Leaving aside, the idea is gone, democratic governments can help make the internet as democratic as possible.
The Big Tech management venue today is not really changing. While it is difficult to see the change as inconsistent, some media outlets often forget that technology is not a monolith and that many different developments have led to various legal calls: Equifax data breach, Cambridge Analytica confidential, Russian dipo attack, Covid disease false, wrong campaigns following black voters, use racism and xenophobia, torture police use technical supervisor, and I continue. Not all legislators care equally, or at all, on these issues.
Data breach and redundancy appear to be two areas with the greatest potential for joint legislation; Congress members cannot stand to say they believe they have reduced security and put their constituencies at risk. Earlier this year, after a series of devastating Russian threats were launched, members of everything parties criticized the practice and showed how Congress and the White House could respond by approving Russian voters and increasing spending on family security. The House and Senate took place dipo obedience in July, construction an important government function managing bipartisan responses to threat.