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
Nvidia’s $700 Million Buyout of Run:ai Gets EU Approval, Deal Finalized
Jan 1, 2025 by
CPI
Taiwan FTC Halts Uber’s $950M Foodpanda Buyout Over Antitrust Fears
Jan 1, 2025 by
CPI
White House Pushes for Stronger Healthcare Data Security
Jan 1, 2025 by
CPI
Microsoft’s Cybersecurity Bundles Draw Antitrust Inquiry
Jan 1, 2025 by
CPI
UK Watchdog to Review IBM’s $6.4 Billion Acquisition of HashiCorp
Jan 1, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand