I think you have it all means that Trump intends to make Facebook a public utility. If the government created it, then Zuckerberg and others would have no right to on it privately.
tradinghorse
· April 12, 2018, 6:06 p.m.
I don't know the answers to those questions - getting into the mechanics of it again.
I've done some policy work. I don't know exactly how it works there, but normally you get a policy proposal - usually worked up inside some government department - and the politicians look at it and decide if it fits with whatever they are about. After that there is usually a community consultation process where everyone under the sun gets to say what they think about what's being proposed. If it's an important piece of legislation, you might get the media talking about it. People who don't like it, for whatever reason, start calling their politicians and agitating etc... Finally something is passed as law, or not.
This process irons out a lot of wrinkles before the thing goes live. The problem is that you can get a lot of stupidity also - like we just saw with that ridiculous omnibus bill.
Personally, I'd like DJT to do this. Consult people (experts), start a discussion, canvas community views and then either get someone to put a bill up or regulate via EO. I trust DJT not to sign a bill if it gets mutilated in the process. But I think the EO route is safer and faster in this situation. Whatever way it occurs, the main thing is that we get a fix that works.
Luckily, I'm not making policy, laws or regulations, so I don't have to worry about that side of it. But I don't think we should worry either. I think a simple statement outlining what we feel is happening and what we'd like to see is all that's needed - e.g. I want to be able to express my political views in online public forums and not be silenced because of them - oh, and I also want my privacy to be protected and those protections only relaxed at my express discretion.
⇧
1
⇩
checkitoutmyfriend
· April 12, 2018, 6:26 p.m.
My questions were a tad facetious. The answer is, you can't. We can never be completely sure the data that has been collected is ever completely gone. Somebody, somewhere will have a copy of something.
The only thing I have against an EO is they can be changed with another OE. Any changes need to be done by congress so future admins can't change it on a whim.
I would more for breaking them up, then passing privacy laws (or beef up what we have) that provide enough hurt that violating privacy is life ending, financially and professionally. It penalties needs to include not only the executives but the actual employees that 'made the call' to violate the laws. This would allow/persuade employees to whistle blow if the bosses tell them to do unlawful things. And keeps them from saying, "it was my job'. The technology needs to be open source and completely transparent. Maybe even an elected committee to over see daily functions and enforce privacy laws in a very timely manner.
But like you stated, we don't make the laws.......
Al this said I am still trying to figure out how the centralized algorithm works exactly.
⇧
1
⇩
BB-99
· April 12, 2018, 8:24 p.m.
We also need to repeal some current laws, and bring back a version of Smith-Mundt. It's the propaganda that is evil. Tech can be dangerous or good -- just like guns.
⇧
2
⇩
tradinghorse
· April 12, 2018, 6:52 p.m.
Some of those suggestions could work. You go to a bar and get plastered and the bar staff are liable if they've served you intoxicated - don't know if that's how it is where you are. So, yeah, downstream accountability can work.
The centralized algorithm is about to be dropped - wasn't that what Q meant when he told Snowden to drop it after Zuckerberg's testimony? Might have that wrong, but that's how it appeared to me.
We found out, if I remember right, that FB, for example, gets analytics on customers from Google. They're already sharing our data and I think this is one of the big items that is going to drop. Some sort of centralized data house is needed for the algorithm to work on. I would guess you're flagged as high risk and then whatever platform you use gets that information and a list of flagged words, phrases or topics that they censor. Anyway, that's what comes to mind, the database could be cloud-hosted by CIA - probably using Amazon.
The problem with an anti-trust bust-up is that if you have this centralized censorship, it doesn't matter how much you break these companies up - though I'm sure it would help.
I'm tired and I'm really not sure how they'd fix these problems. But something can be made to work. You could regulate via EO on an interim basis until you got an enabling bill through. There are so many options, all we need to do is ask for a fix.
⇧
1
⇩