Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Out With the Old, In With The New(s)? Not for Facebook Australia
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dheepa" data-source="post: 67523" data-attributes="member: 1572"><p>Really like how you've phrased this Jacob - so very true!</p><p></p><p>On whether or not private companies should be allowed to dictate what end users see, if it isn't the tech giants themselves doing it, it's the companies they are outsourcing fact checking to. Personally I'm not sure there's a clear cut way out of this one. Interestingly enough, the conversation this summer in the US was about whether Facebook was doing enough to curb misinformation on political ads (so whether they were regulating harmful/potentially fake free speech enough). But fast forward to now, when Twitter and Facebook has permanently banned Trump's account, it seems like people are more outraged that freedom of speech can be curbed to such an extent. A point I mentioned in my original post about the UK requiring Big Tech platforms to create an appeal system for any content removed seems to try to find a middle ground on this.</p><p></p><p>I agree that regulating Big Tech through a collective supranational standpoint is the more effective way forward. The fact of the matter is, every time Big Tech platforms do something shocking - like the blackout in Australia, it reminds governments that these platforms seem to think they themselves are a iconoclastic supranational authority. I think that if governments are serious about regulating Big Tech, it needs to be through some form of collective policy/code of conduct/law. This is also easier said than done. The OECD have been recommending an overhaul of international taxation (beyond just a digital tax) particularly to deal with tech companies and their buusiness models for years now with no success. Very unlikely anything about the piecemeal approach will change. What you mentioned in your original post about parallel lines of regulation developing is likely to be the case.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is exactly why the EU is considering taking the Australian approach with the arbitrator that can set rates/prices. Circumvents bargaining power issues such as the one in this case entirely.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dheepa, post: 67523, member: 1572"] Really like how you've phrased this Jacob - so very true! On whether or not private companies should be allowed to dictate what end users see, if it isn't the tech giants themselves doing it, it's the companies they are outsourcing fact checking to. Personally I'm not sure there's a clear cut way out of this one. Interestingly enough, the conversation this summer in the US was about whether Facebook was doing enough to curb misinformation on political ads (so whether they were regulating harmful/potentially fake free speech enough). But fast forward to now, when Twitter and Facebook has permanently banned Trump's account, it seems like people are more outraged that freedom of speech can be curbed to such an extent. A point I mentioned in my original post about the UK requiring Big Tech platforms to create an appeal system for any content removed seems to try to find a middle ground on this. I agree that regulating Big Tech through a collective supranational standpoint is the more effective way forward. The fact of the matter is, every time Big Tech platforms do something shocking - like the blackout in Australia, it reminds governments that these platforms seem to think they themselves are a iconoclastic supranational authority. I think that if governments are serious about regulating Big Tech, it needs to be through some form of collective policy/code of conduct/law. This is also easier said than done. The OECD have been recommending an overhaul of international taxation (beyond just a digital tax) particularly to deal with tech companies and their buusiness models for years now with no success. Very unlikely anything about the piecemeal approach will change. What you mentioned in your original post about parallel lines of regulation developing is likely to be the case. I think this is exactly why the EU is considering taking the Australian approach with the arbitrator that can set rates/prices. Circumvents bargaining power issues such as the one in this case entirely. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Out With the Old, In With The New(s)? Not for Facebook Australia
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…