Perhaps you saw parts of the grilling of some tech executives as part of committee hearings related to Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Act. The committee had arranged to have parents of children who had committed suicide in the audience and kept asking the tech executives to apologize and address these parents. It was difficult and I suppose made for great political television. I admit to having some sympathy for the executives put in this situation.
My reaction to these issues is to ask myself what I think would be necessary to make the situation better. I see the present situation as the equivalent of the politicians yelling at the big tech people claiming this is your fault so fix it. I keep thinking if in their place I would respond by asking just what is it you would propose we should change.
With this situation and the anti Section 230 politicians, the tech companies that essentially provide an opportunity for bad actors to act are the target. The problem with tech more generally is the same tools for accomplishing great things can be used by bad actors to do terrible things. There is no simple way to go after the bad actors so politicians go after the tech companies. It seems to me one solution would be to require the users of online technologies to establish their identities. I understand this would be challenging, but we seem to have figured it out when it comes to driver’s licenses and passports. Without anonymity, it would seem possible to go after bad actors. I understand there would be an issue here with equity and some users have very legitimate reasons for being anonymous, but this is a choice that could be made.
My point is that this is concrete and politicians could make this a requirement. Why not? Again, based on this example, Section 230 argues against such requirements because such expectations could probably be addressed by big tech, but would not be possible to implement by any of the rest of us with an online presence (even a blog) that could allow public comment. Competition with big tech would be eliminated.
I do think it essential to address big tech, but I have a much wider set of concerns. The limited options are the type of issue I think politicians should address as a root issue. Capitalism assumes things improve when individuals can move to an alternative providing the circumstances they desire. There are few options and the lack of interoperability between services limits choice.
If you are interested in this issue, I would recommend a recent post from danah boyd (I forget why she does not use capital letters). boyd has researched and written about adolescents and technology for years. Her analysis takes a broader view and while recognizing a role for online technology proposes that adolescents and the rest of us live in a messed up and toxic culture such that addressing tech alone will result in little change.
You must be logged in to post a comment.