Do we Need to Regulate Google and Facebook

This could be taken another way to be saying “if you don’t want to be part of or participate in life, don’t use it. You can’t expect to be accepted or have access to what the world has to offer if you refuse to use social media.” The tribe has spoken is an oft used reflection on how it turns out.

I’m not one for FB or mortgaging my future to Google. It seems though that by not doing so one is cutting off many opportunities. I’ll add LinkedIn to that having twice more than a decade past been asked to provide job applications through a portal connecting with my profile. Incidentally something I did not have at that time, but without which the online form would not complete.

We may be asking for a right to privacy for our data to be protected and not tracked. The evidence is that the current legislated controls are a long way behind what the vast majority have come to know and accept.

Opting out is really opting all out, IMHO. It’s not a realistic option except for a select few. As Imperfect as further regulation may be, if it causes a reset to how things were 20 years prior and destroys some of the supposed benefits, will we be that poorer for having done so? I think not.

1 Like

never leave out FATCA! It does not even require an app or middle man, just a banking system and compliant foreign government. There are a few, mostly not ‘top 10’ who have refrained to date although banks that do not comply are not allowed to operate in the USA.

2 Likes

Or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or whenever the US imposes sanctions on a country, any other country doing business in the US has to comply with.

World bullies.

I think Meta has just wilfully ignored the 2020 EU Court of Justice ruling on EU user data storage outside of the EU (which in the EU benefits from their GDPR). Three years on Meta continued to transfer data from their EU base in Ireland without the protections they should have afforded that data. Meta still have time to correct the situation, but the fine remains unless the Meta appeal is successful. Further down in the article it notes that Washington and Brussels have created an agreement that will offer the EU data the protection required though not yet implemented:

“A spokesperson for the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – said it hoped a new framework for transatlantic data transfers would be “fully functional by the summer” which would provide the “stability and legal certainty” sought by US tech companies. Facebook would be able to resume data transfers under the new data regime, which has been agreed between Washington and Brussels at a political level but still requires agreement on implementation.

The spokesperson said it was “very clear” that the EU had worked with the US on putting “safeguards” protecting consumer data in place and it hoped to restore legal certainty.”

2 Likes

That is against the fundamental business model of social media. If “further regulation” ever achieves a lack of tracking and significant privacy in social media then the business model will collapse and, like mainstream media, social media will start to wither and die.

That depends on whether alternatives become available, alternatives that don’t rely on surveillance capitalism.

That may well be so - I am not at all familiar with the relevant regulations etc.

I have moved beyond that to look at the underlying problems and solutions (as Australia, for example, doesn’t really have skin in the game either way, not in the EU and not in any large social media companies, so whoever wins EU GDPR v. Big Social Media doesn’t really matter to us 1).

I have my doubts that Big Social Media will ever fit properly in a regime that puts some kind of priority on privacy. They can make the right noises and both sides can pretend that things are good but I remain sceptical.

1 Well unless the “truce” involves yet more stupid EU popups on every web site …

1 Like

GDPR does affect Australians, an Australian company or people who deal with EU citizens or businesses and if that data is stored in AU servers then that data is protected by GDPR and some businesses here now acknowledge that requirement. This would result in an effect if the Australian company was a Facebook presence or a Google storefront. The EU person are dealing with an Australian and perhaps would expect GDPR protections would apply.

The OAIC has an opinion that reflects this regardless of how an Australian entity might carry out their activity with EU residents (this could include Facebook Marketplace for example).

For a semi legal read on it

3 Likes

True, but that isn’t what I said. Just: whoever wins EU GDPR v. Big Social Media doesn’t really matter to us.

Well, OK, if Big Social Media wins and GDPR is actually wound back for all companies then there could be a small benefit for Australian companies. But Big Social Media could win and yet GDPR stays as it is. Or Big Social Media could win and GDPR accommodates Big Social Media but no-one else. And more likely Big Social Media loses anyway.

Doesn’t it also depend on users wanting to use the alternatives in greater numbers than the existing options?

IE If the majority still go to FB Market Place to purchase there is little value of using a competitor to sell the same type of goods, home surplus etc if there are few going to the site.

I’m of course reflecting the power FB and Google hold for as long as they can retain control - of their user base and regulation. Musk-esque events excepted. :wink::joy:

2 Likes

If there are alternatives that don’t exhibit “undesirable property X” and the existing option does exhibit it and people complain about X then, no. People should either vote with their feet or not complain.

But, sure, there is the “network effect” i.e. critical mass - and that can be a problem in dislodging undesirable incumbents.

The problem with your point is that effectively no one moves, waiting for everyone else to move. Someone just has to start the stampede for the exits, be the first mover and accept the potential temporary negatives.

1 Like

The unimaginable, which ever way one looks at it?
Independent of the specific example before the courts.

“X” (previously Twitter) is defending a position that it is not responsible for and has no way of controlling content shared. As an aside it claims QCAT has no jurisdiction over any content created or enterprise located outside the state of QLD.

Of course if similar content was to be published or communication facilitated on paper or digitally by an Australian enterprise, the outcome would likely be predictable. Is it the same for any digitally delivered content, whether a rant, advice, or advert for a dodgy product, etc?

The power of the global platforms in part resides with their ability to cross borders without fear of statutory consequence. “X”, has put forward that an adverse outcome would set an international precedent as cause to dismiss the case. Locals familiar with QCAT might find it amusing to hear QCAT has such standing. :joy:

Bemused?
Best taken with a 6Pack or …to dull the senses the following is likely easier to make sense of.
Mathematically “x” typically represents an unknown quantity. It is not an answer. It’s a symbol in a problem looking for a solution (answer). Looking to the hand of Musk upon the equation. Needs one to resort to complex (imaginary) numbers and Laplace, or more recent string theory.
It may be a long time before the average consumer finds the solution. If at all! :wink:

3 Likes

Sounds terrible! Judging a company by the company it promotes?

I’m sure Elon is planning to challenge a popular Queensland brew’s trademark as soon as he completes his plan to get rid of 95% of platform users.

3 Likes

While that ought to be the case in my opinion, there is ample evidence (and court decisions) to show that governments don’t see it that way. They all want to divide the internet up into their own little fiefdoms. Going to a subnational level is just a continuation of that trend.

The bigger question though is not jurisdiction but the extent to which responsibility is divided between the person creating the content and the company delivering the content. Almost all parties to a dispute prefer to attack the latter.

Generally for two reasons:

  1. The content deliverer is generally easier to find.
  2. They have more money, and so can pay higher damages if sued.
1 Like

Thirdly; they are easier to control and to force them to control the zillions of content creators.

Which seems reasonable to me, why are they to be treated differently to a newspaper? There is no other point that control can be done.

Unless you are a Musky free speech absolutist. I wonder if his philosophy would alter if some other ethic apart from free-for-all was more profitable?

To me the key question is not what is the medium or how does it work or what does control cost - but how should people treat each other and treat facts and opinion.

1 Like

Two answers to that:

  1. It would be an unusual newspaper where 100% of the newspaper’s content is created by people with no connection to the newspaper. It would be as if the newspaper is exclusively Letters to the Editor (but without an editor!).
  2. Safe harbour. It is an accepted concept in internet regulation. It is of course up to the individual fiefdom as to whether it applies that concept in any particular circumstance.

To look at it somewhat differently, social media is the new “town square”. If you shouted something out in the town square and someone took exception to what you shouted, you would be responsible, not the local council who administers the town square. Why is social media treated differently from the town square?

I think the analogy of a newspaper is somewhat inappropriate. The people writing content for the newspaper are full-time professionals, and the newspaper has feasible access to legal opinion if the newspaper has concerns that some piece of content to be published that day might be legally doubtful (and a newspaper might choose to hold off publishing the content until that legal opinion is available).

This is everything that social media is not.

In a sense, when you try to apply the standards of the newspaper to social media, you roll back hard-won empowerment of the people, and their right to speak, which is of course why governments (and some corporations) like the idea.

Once you make it purely a financial consideration for the social media platform, they will always act in their interests, not in the interests of the people.

To be clear, almost all of what I am saying here is directed at Facebook and other social media, rather than the Google part of the topic title.

1 Like

Because social media is not a Town Square?

In which sense are the standards applied to a newspaper disempowering? Especially since we the people are the ones responsible for those who set the standards.

As a community we have standards for how we behave and what we say and what is publicly shared. They apply in the Town Square, because through the state we have ownership and control of the Town Square. If the Digital Platforms are the new “Town Square” should they not come under the same obligations of ownership and control?

1 Like

(it was a rhetorical question, not original to me either) … the point being that social media is not a newspaper either.

because a random person posting on social media (including, say, in this forum or any other forum) is not: a full-time professional and with feasible access to legal opinion.

So applying newspaper standards to randoms on social media is a standard that randoms can’t possibly meet.

A very theoretical point but, yes, in theory we have some kind of control over those who write the legislation i.e. our parliamentary representatives. In the absence of direct democracy we do not directly control the legislation - and, as you would surely realise, legislative outcomes are often controversial and sometimes even opposed by the majority.

There may be no formal recourse at all for “the people”. In practice in Australia, let’s say that Muppet A is in government and passes some stinker of a piece of legislation. It is highly unpopular and at the next election Muppet A is voted out - but Muppet B goes to the election not promising to repeal or amend the legislation (because really the legislation suits both Muppets). So we are stuck with it.

Having indirect control over the legislation does not necessarily mean controlling the standards. For example, the recent proposed misinformation legislation actually outsourced all of the standards-making from the parliament to ACMA (where we do not even indirectly control anything).

I believe that government should be kept on a tight leash. :wink: You might be concerned to regulate “Facebook”. I believe that government is more in need of regulation.

My point about the Town Square was in fact about whether the person shouting or the local council is responsible, not that there are no restrictions at all on what the person can shout: you would be responsible.

Is that saying Meta is not accountable?

Regular followers of this Community will be aware of adverts using well known Australian’s images to promote dubious products through Google and Facebook managed web pages.

Meta fights Andrew Forrest for documents in battle over alleged crypto scam | Andrew Forrest | The Guardian

Prosecutors allege Meta was criminally reckless in allowing bogus advertisements for a cryptocurrency investment scheme using Forrest’s image to appear on its site.
Meta is accused of failing to take sufficient steps to take down the scam advertisements, which feature the billionaire and other prominent Australians.

For Australia product promotion whether a direct advert, infomercials, or the infamous ‘cash for comment’ is regulated. It’s the media that facilitates the promotion which is held to account. Not how the global digital platforms, or at least Meta may see the future.

1 Like

True, most newspapers exercise better responsibility over what they print.

You don’t want our governments to be given any more power, you want them tightly controlled but of course those political or corporate powers we have no control over now are welcome to stay that way. You leave foreign powers and megacompanies that decide for themselves what influence they have and how they use media for their own ends to do as they please.

In your world we can choose between untrammelled capitalist nirvana or foreign interference, or have both, or each feeding the other but we cannot call on our governments to contain either.

Where exactly do you stand on censorship? Do you think there should be some or none at all? If some, what, and who manages it?

1 Like

Indeed. And such advertising is misrepresenting the fact that the product is endorsed by someone who isn’t endorsing the product - and at least sometimes the product itself would be outright fraud (e.g. non-existent).

I am suggesting that you make the advertiser accountable - for both the unauthorised use of an image (and the misrepresentation) and for the likely fraud.

The trend of trying to make some other party accountable for the misdeeds of one is an insidious one.

If any regulation is needed, it would be to tighten up the identification requirements - like a “know your customer” for social media. That is, you can’t advertise anonymously - and the identification will be shown clearly inline with the advertisement.

“Andrew Forrest” is wealthy enough to fight his own legal battles - but he does need to know whom to sue over the misuse of his image.

Of course advertising was totally not what I was talking about. I was talking about randoms like you and me having our say on the internet. That is not a commercial arrangement. Neither of us will derive profit or revenue from doing so and, in my opinion, the same rules and standards that apply in a commercial context should not apply to us.