Post by account_disabled on Jan 13, 2024 7:36:05 GMT
Connected to nearly everything, including access to critical government services. What’s more, there are troubling signs that all the data generated by our expanding use of technology is creating new side effects, including algorithmic bias, digital redlining, and the monetization of consumer data through advanced analytics or surveillance capitalism . what to do? Although for different reasons, members of both major political parties are increasingly advocating a solution that abandons a hands-off approach and limits the development and use of revolutionary technologies. However, doing so may delay or even deprive users of the potentially life-changing benefits of many of the technologies mentioned above.
Don’t rush into regulation. The worst time to change the law is in the middle of a crisis. There is neither the ability nor the patience to dispassionately analyze or carefully consider how new regulations might conflict with existing laws and individual rights. For example, in response to the failure to moderate political content fairly, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers Email Lists Database have called for reforming or repealing a law called Title I, which protects service providers large and small from direct liability for user activity. But without Article 1, the existence of , , , , or is questionable. Likewise, calls to break up tech giants, especially ones that are inherently mismanaged, reflect more emotion than logic. Breaking up doesn't help consumers. In fact, given economies of scale, the opposite is more likely to happen. Let the technology adjust as much as possible.
Disruptive innovation and traditional law operate on completely different timelines. Innovation is fast; law is, by design, slow. Letting most technical and business issues resolve themselves based on self-regulation, best practices, and other forms of soft law can provide more timely and effective (albeit still imperfect) solutions. The best legislation sets out general principles and gives specialist regulators the power to enforce them where necessary. This has long been the theory behind U.S. antitrust law, for example, which doesn't even define a monopoly but instead specifies the types of harm to consumers (rather than competitors) that can be considered unfair competition. evidence of. Intervene only when public interests are genuinely at risk. When technology-driven disruptors emerge unexpectedly, industry incumbents.
Don’t rush into regulation. The worst time to change the law is in the middle of a crisis. There is neither the ability nor the patience to dispassionately analyze or carefully consider how new regulations might conflict with existing laws and individual rights. For example, in response to the failure to moderate political content fairly, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers Email Lists Database have called for reforming or repealing a law called Title I, which protects service providers large and small from direct liability for user activity. But without Article 1, the existence of , , , , or is questionable. Likewise, calls to break up tech giants, especially ones that are inherently mismanaged, reflect more emotion than logic. Breaking up doesn't help consumers. In fact, given economies of scale, the opposite is more likely to happen. Let the technology adjust as much as possible.
Disruptive innovation and traditional law operate on completely different timelines. Innovation is fast; law is, by design, slow. Letting most technical and business issues resolve themselves based on self-regulation, best practices, and other forms of soft law can provide more timely and effective (albeit still imperfect) solutions. The best legislation sets out general principles and gives specialist regulators the power to enforce them where necessary. This has long been the theory behind U.S. antitrust law, for example, which doesn't even define a monopoly but instead specifies the types of harm to consumers (rather than competitors) that can be considered unfair competition. evidence of. Intervene only when public interests are genuinely at risk. When technology-driven disruptors emerge unexpectedly, industry incumbents.