By Dipayan Ghosh
Last month, the British parliament released a detailed and forceful report on the disinformation – or “fake news” – problem. The report examined what it described as overreaches of an internet industry comprised of leading Silicon Valley firms that, in the committee’s view, is responsible for perpetrating tremendous harms against British citizens.
This report is only the latest incident marking a trajectory toward regulation and legislation that will constrain how these and other firms operate on the web in regard to not only disinformation but also increasingly broader social and economic concerns including transparency, privacy, and competition. Businesses need to know what is coming, and what is at stake — and come to the table in Washington ready to contribute to these efforts in an honest negotiation.
My experience as a computer scientist, internet technology researcher, and public policy advisor leads me to believe that this report accurately portrays tensions at the heart of this industry, and accurately places responsibility for the problems on leading internet firms – which it describes as “digital gangsters.” It has become clear that these businesses have harmed consumers and damaged the public trust; whether we consider the disinformation problem, the spread of hate speech, or the emergence of systemic algorithmic discrimination, the array of negative externalities prompted by this commercial regime is seemingly endless. I believe that rather than leaving U.S. firms to endure fines from foreign enforcers, it is time for the U.S. government to come forward with its own fair and meaningful regulatory solution to these problems.
It is also time for the industry to take part in these conversations. Indeed, it is in its interest to do so: its failure to participate could well result in overbearing regulation for businesses beyond the “gangsters.” The U.S. policymaking community need not look far to see models that would have heavy implications for businesses: the world’s most rigorous privacy regime, the European General Data Protection Regulation, went into effect last May; the California legislature built on the principles of the GDPR to pass the most stringent U.S. privacy law to date; and similar rumblings have emerged from Illinois and New York among other states as they consider taking action as well.
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh