Microsoft President Brad Smith says governments need to set rules for big technology companies. "Almost no technology has gone so entirely unregulated, for so long, as digital technology," he says.
Gary He/Reuters
Regulate us. That's the unexpected message from one of the country's leading tech executives. Microsoft President Brad Smith argues that governments need to put some "guardrails" around engineers and the tech titans they serve.
If public leaders don't, he says, the Internet giants will cannibalize the very fabric of this country.
"We need to work together; we need to work with governments to protect, frankly, something that is far more important than technology: democracy. It was here before us. It needs to be here and healthy after us," Smith says.
Smith has co-authored, with Carol Ann Browne, Tools and Weapons: The Promise and the Peril of the Digital Age. The title reflects a simple fact about how any technology — and digital tech in particular — works: It can be a tool or a weapon, much like a knife.
Microsoft is not in the crosshairs right now. But when it was, back in the 1990s, Smith was the man repeating that well-worn refrain about how regulation kills innovation.
"I look at the things that we said; I look at the things I said 20 years ago," he says. "There were many things that we got wrong."
According to Smith, the threat that Microsoft posed during its protracted antitrust case was economic. Today, the tech giants — whose tools have been used to interfere in fair and free elections — are posing a much bigger threat to the political stability of many countries, including the U.S.
Smith has proposals that are not popular in Silicon Valley. For one, he argues, it's time to reform the U.S. law that says Internet platforms are not liable for just about any of the content running through their pipes — hate speech, death threats and ads for counterfeit goods or illegal guns.
That law has enabled Microsoft's competitors — Amazon, Facebook and Google and its subsidiary YouTube — to grow at breakneck speed. "Almost no technology has gone so entirely unregulated, for so long, as digital technology," Smith says.
Skeptics say Smith's rhetoric masks an agenda to keep Microsoft on top. A tough law making Internet platforms accountable for content poses a greater threat to the competition than to Microsoft. And calling for regulation doesn't necessarily mean the strongest regulation. Earlier this year, in its home state of Washington, Microsoft pushed back on a facial recognition bill that protected civil rights in favor of a less restrictive bill. And other tech chiefs — including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg — have said there's a need for some regulation.
But Smith goes further and deeper than his peers, by arguing that governments need to probe the fundamentals of the data economy. He poses these questions: Where do our data go? Who gets to call the shots on how our data get used: the few companies — Microsoft included — that have collected the informaton?
"I worry that if all of the data on which the world relies is in the hands of a small number of tech companies, you're going to see a massive transfer of economic wealth," he says.
This week, nearly every state attorney general in the U.S. joined an antitrust probe into Google. Last week, nine attorneys general launched an investigation of Facebook.
It will be years before a court ruling (if any) lands. Smith encourages his fellow tech leaders to look for places where they can compromise. He is the one who pushed Bill Gates and Microsoft to enter a settlement, which was hard, emotionally.
"There were days when people would say, 'Why are you such a wimp?' " Smith recalls. "The answer in my view was because it was the wrong fight to fight" and "it often takes more courage to compromise than it does to keep fighting."
That sounds like geopolitical, business and marriage advice. Maybe Smith has another book in him.
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By DARREN LINVILL & PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,” as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President Donald Trump could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent Joe Biden when more votes are tallied. This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over, 3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money? Is that part of
Comments
Post a Comment