Florida, In A First, Will Fine Social Media Companies That Bar Candidates
“More than a hundred bills targeting the companies’ moderation practices have been filed nationwide this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”
While this law will likely be challenged, the issue we’ve consistently questioned is the cost implication for tech companies: in terms of legal fees and management distraction, let alone any penalties potentially applied….and their ever expanding compliance departments.
Lawmakers Want To Force Big Tech To Give Researchers More Data
A further continuation of regulatory incursion into tech companies’ modus operandi. What stands out is how much power now goes into the hands of ‘academics.’ Considering that one of the Cambridge Analytica scandal’s main players was such an academic, one can see how this is not necessarily a bolts and braces solution.
Moreover, this might encourage the funding of certain scholarships, programs or fellowships by entities with vested interest, to gain access to such data, with the educational institutions trying to act as gatekeepers.
Nonetheless, the innovation in regulation continues and it will be interesting to observe the twists and turns, with the accompanying learning that emerges with it.
Facebook’s Oversight Board Should Monitor The Whole Industry, Says Leading Member
While this oversight board member’s suggestion has merit, the reality of such an endeavour is likely riddled with issues:
1. Who would determine the membership of such a board? Would it be the members who contribute the most financially, with the most content, or those with the thorniest issues?
2. Who and how would everyone ratify the governance of such a board?
3. Would the companies that sign up to it all be equally accountable to its decisions (one can already foresee issues with a precedent concerning Facebook, not being applicable to Reddit)?
4. Who would the board ultimately be accountable to: society, governments, consumers, the platforms or some combination thereof? With a multi-lateral institution, the members (governments) would have final say, for instance
In the meantime, the current structure has yet to gain the trust and accompanying legitimacy in terms of consistency and representation. A wider board would have a much higher threshold, with far more complexities to overcome.
How To Thrive In The Shadow Of Giants
This analysis raises an interesting question regarding the ethics of an up and coming ‘second-tier’ of tech companies, particularly as many of them are still private.
How do investors act to ensure that the hard-learned lessons from GAFAMs’ brushes with ethics are not repeated by their younger brethren? More importantly, what can they impart from learnings about ethically-driven company cultures and processes that can consistently eliminate such future gaffs?
Doctors Fear Google Skin Check App Will Lead to ‘Tsunami of Overdiagnosis’
This application has admirable potential to solve the bottleneck of dermatologist shortages, and (the yet to be proven) possibility for more accurate diagnosis.
On the other hand its release into the wild now could lead to incorrect diagnoses based on limitations of perfect visibility from photos, and patients’ biases.
The broader point is that tech companies can release apps in the app store and promote them without much regulatory oversight. The decision is left to a company to self–regulate through the opposing push and pull of revenue and data accretion, versus fear of reputational backlash. Is this the optimal methodology for approving health-related apps from the range of companies providing them, going forward?