Even the most prolific news service - a giant wire service like AP-AFP or Thomson-Reuters-TransCanada-Huawei - only publishes several thousand articles per day.
Thanks to their armies of lawyers, editors and insurance underwriters, they are able to make the news available without falling afoul of new rules prohibiting certain kinds of speech - including everything from Saudi blasphemy rules to Austria's ban on calling politicians "Fascists" to Thailand's stringent lèse-majesté rules.
From YouTube's 2,000 hours of video uploaded every minute to Facebook-Weibo's three billion daily updates, there was no scalable way to carefully examine the contributions of every user and assess whether they violated any of these new laws.
What if we'd put a halt to the practice, re-establishing the traditional antitrust rules against "Mergers to monopoly" and acquiring your nascent competitors? What if we'd established an absolute legal defense for new market entrants seeking to compete with established monopolists?
Most of these new companies would have failed - if only because most new ventures fail - but the survivors would have challenged the Big Tech giants, eroding their profits and giving them less lobbying capital.
Only the largest companies can afford the kinds of filters we've demanded of them, and that means that any would-be trustbuster who wants to break up the companies and bring them to heel first must unwind the mesh of obligations we've ensnared the platforms in and build new, state-based mechanisms to perform those duties.
In the meantime, here I am, forced to publish in The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/future-free-speech-social-media-platforms.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Thanks to their armies of lawyers, editors and insurance underwriters, they are able to make the news available without falling afoul of new rules prohibiting certain kinds of speech - including everything from Saudi blasphemy rules to Austria's ban on calling politicians "Fascists" to Thailand's stringent lèse-majesté rules.
From YouTube's 2,000 hours of video uploaded every minute to Facebook-Weibo's three billion daily updates, there was no scalable way to carefully examine the contributions of every user and assess whether they violated any of these new laws.
What if we'd put a halt to the practice, re-establishing the traditional antitrust rules against "Mergers to monopoly" and acquiring your nascent competitors? What if we'd established an absolute legal defense for new market entrants seeking to compete with established monopolists?
Most of these new companies would have failed - if only because most new ventures fail - but the survivors would have challenged the Big Tech giants, eroding their profits and giving them less lobbying capital.
Only the largest companies can afford the kinds of filters we've demanded of them, and that means that any would-be trustbuster who wants to break up the companies and bring them to heel first must unwind the mesh of obligations we've ensnared the platforms in and build new, state-based mechanisms to perform those duties.
In the meantime, here I am, forced to publish in The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/future-free-speech-social-media-platforms.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
No comments:
Post a Comment