[RD] Bannon v. Google: We’ll See in D.C.

[BvBPL]

The Intercept is reporting that White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon is itching to throw down with some of the biggest tech firms in the world, companies like Facebook and Google. Bannon apparently wants the tech giants regulated like utilities, like the phone company. Such regulation wouldn’t make Facebook a public entity, but would impose a host of new regulations upon the companies in light of their dominate statuses in the market. Bannon points that while we treat Google and Facebook as something optional, interaction with these and similar entities is increasingly becoming required in our wired(less) age.

Bannon’s suggestion that Google et al be regulated as utilities seems similarly to the Democrats’ “Better Way” marketing strategy that is selling the concept of stronger anti-trust regulation and breaking up of monopolies to American voters. Interestingly, the Intercept notes that Bannon’s suggested regulations pre-dates “Better Way.” Bannon’s calls also come at what could be an important time for internet neutrality, the notion that carriers of internet information, which increasingly own major websites, should not throttle up or down various pieces of information based upon the origin.

Bannon founded the Brietbart website, and it would be in the best interests of that site for the tech majors like Facebook and Google to be closely regulated. Public regulation of service providers like Google and Facebook would likely limit the ability of those services to steer users away from websites like Brietbart that sit in the penumbra of disinformation and hateful opinions.

Regulations of Google and Facebook would also usher in significant new protections for the consumers and users of the internet. Facebook and its ilk collect vast amounts of information about their users and have relatively few restrictions upon the use of that data. Public utility-like regulation of these companies would likely come with significant restrictions on the use of that information, thereby providing privacy protections to the public. It could help to preserve the possibility of future entrepreneurship and competition by preventing these companies from freezing out nascent competitors.

Could Bannon’s call for regulation affirm and shore up consumer rights and interests vis-à-vis tech firms? Will the Trump White House do why Obama’s could not, namely protect the public against the potential of massive overreach by private tech giants? Is Bannon a closet Democrat? (Don’t laugh, he also wants to raise taxes.)

 

[Lexicus]

Bannon wants these things regulated so they can be better conduits for Nazi propaganda. He's not a closet Democrat, he's a fascist.

 

[Farm Boy]

Poor Ma Bell.

 

[civvver]

Sounds utterly ridiculous, now tell me where is the outcry vs the actual isp's who really are far more and away like utilites than facebook and google? Facebook and google should and are facing anti trust suits in Europe and should here as well, but they are utilities in the sense that it's mandatory to use them. The internet in general though is and there's always a local monopoly on isps who price gouge the crap out of customers with crappy service, and are constantly colluding with content providers.

 

[Lexicus]

Sounds utterly ridiculous, now tell me where is the outcry vs the actual isp's who really are far more and away like utilites than facebook and google? Facebook and google should and are facing anti trust suits in Europe and should here as well, but they are utilities in the sense that it's mandatory to use them. The internet in general though is and there's always a local monopoly on isps who price gouge the crap out of customers with crappy service, and are constantly colluding with content providers.

The ISPs need to be straight-up nationalized.

 

[Samson]

Sounds like the best way to persuade google and failbook to move out of america.

 

[BvBPL]

Sounds utterly ridiculous, now tell me where is the outcry vs the actual isp's who really are far more and away like utilites than facebook and google? Facebook and google should and are facing anti trust suits in Europe and should here as well, but they are utilities in the sense that it's mandatory to use them. The internet in general though is and there's always a local monopoly on isps who price gouge the crap out of customers with crappy service, and are constantly colluding with content providers.

This strikes me as condemning a potentially beneficial proposal because it does not cover a separate industry. It is like condemning giving money to diabetes research by pointing out that heart disease kills so many more people than the sugar.

The internet is a very broad appliance; regulation of it will need to be equally broad. This is likely to mean not only regulation of the physical infrastructure, but also controls on digital service providers like Facebook.

 

[Lexicus]

Nationalize it or localize it?

Nationalize there was simply a code word that means "make them not for profit." I agree with the rest of what you're saying, naturally.

 

[civvver]

you don't have to use facebook, I don't use facebook. I use google but there are options. You have to have internet.

It's totally different from your argument because we aren't talking about diseases or even bad things. Google isn't necessarily bad or a problem to be fixed even. You don't want to regulate content providers as long as they aren't monopolies, because that is stifling free speech and censorship. On the flip side isps like comcast, att, without regulation, they can basically do the same thing and censor whoever they want and they are monopolies. So no it's not the same.

 

[Zelig]

Bannon is a putz, I don't care about what he wants.

The ISPs need to be straight-up nationalized.

Nah, just forbid them from selling anything other than dumb pipes. (Including being a subsidiary or owner of any organization that sells anything other than dumb pipes.)

 

[Broken_Erika]

But that would give them a monopoly on the dumb pipes market! Just say no to the dumb pipes monopoly!

 

[Perfection]

I get treating ISPs as utilities but why facebook or google? Does Bannon just want them to not take down racist alt-right crap?

 

[Lexicus]

Does Bannon just want them to not take down racist alt-right crap?

Bingo. Though, it's sort of laughable - Facebook allows plenty of right-wing racist crap, but I know plenty of black people who have had their accounts censured or temporarily banned for using the phrase "white people"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He's mad because Google has the "Wikipedia pane" on their search results, so if you Google Breitbart this comes up prominently:

Breitbart News Network is a far-right American news, opinion and commentary website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories.

 

[El_Machinae]

On the other hand, Facebook and Google have a tremendous amount of power, and currently they're only wielding that power for the benefit of their shareholders. That's a lot of power to have just sitting there, subconsciously controlling us.

 

[Lexicus]

On the other hand, Facebook and Google have a tremendous amount of power, and currently they're only wielding that power for the benefit of their shareholders. That's a lot of power to have just sitting there, subconsciously controlling us.

I mean, Bannon's not wrong, at least not in theory or whatever. Twitter should probably be treated the same way. But I would probably prefer the status quo to allowing the Trump administration to write the rules.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah. That's the interesting part. There's clearly a concern. And Trump has shown himself unworthy in regards to being able to handle that concern.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah. That's the interesting part. There's clearly a concern. And Trump has shown himself unworthy in regards to being able to handle that concern.

Or any other.

 

[uppi]

On the other hand, Facebook and Google have a tremendous amount of power, and currently they're only wielding that power for the benefit of their shareholders. That's a lot of power to have just sitting there, subconsciously controlling us.

Certainly true, but how would you go about that? Right now, I do not have any ideas of effective regulations that would curb the power of Facebook and Google without diminishing the value provided to the users. Violations of anti-trust laws are one thing that can be done, but they seem to be quite ineffective in practice. I am in favor of requiring informed consent before collecting data but most of the time, users do not care enough about what happens to their data or are not willing to sacrifice functionality, because the value of the data is extremely hard to grasp.

Obviously, anything Trump and Bannon will come up with is probably going to be a bad idea in any case.

 

[Zelig]

Certainly true, but how would you go about that?

Punitive taxes on advertisement sales, revenues going to open source software development and tax credits for people paying for ad-free internet services.