The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google/Netflix/others. ISPs bought their way into the market with the ISP privacy protections being removed [1][2] and net neutrality being killed rather than innovating. The privacy protections being removed helped lessen the FCC grip on privacy and helped their case, with legislators not the people, to remove FCC net neutrality protections.
It is obvious everywhere that massive PR pushes are going on and astroturfing to a heavy degree everywhere ISP competitors on the advertising/privacy/data space are.
Instead of innovating their way in with products people want and improving their networks so people pay more, the ISPs are trying to win this via bribing for legislation and mud slinging. They bought their way in with the ISP privacy protections being removed under the FCC to the FTC because they have more leverage there.
It is sad ISPs have resorted to this instead of innovating and creating products people want by improving them rather than trying to slow down competitors via bribing and lobbying.
ISPs were once a beacon of innovation bringing in broadband, now they are in the milking it phase.
I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations.
For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy).
For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR).
I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular."
When it comes down to it, regulation promoting consumer privacy, price and TOS transparency, and access by new entrants to the market is almost always beneficial... to the consumer.
Because let's not kid ourselves that Facebook or Google are fundamentally different than someone who owns the last mile of your network connectivity.
Their current behavior might be (mostly) benevolent, but the centralization they've engineered means if they want to maximize monetization tomorrow...
I’d rather have 10 ISPs competing but NOT innovating than one ISP bent on innovating. Innovation, to an ISP, means: ads, data collection, pushing their own content; basically everything except being a dumb pipe that gets bits from elsewhere into my home.
Silicon Valley needs new laws, accept that, and make the fight about ensuring those laws aren’t burdensome, anticompetitive, and downright stupid. If you spend your energy trying to make those laws not happen at all, they’ll be done to us and not with us. It’s time to accept that a significant (more than 65%) of people want regulations in the tech space, and calmly, patiently explain what kinds of regulations can be helpful and which would be disastrous. Accept that it will be a matter of compromise (at best) and that means no one will be entirely happy.
I think people are understandably wary of new regulations, namely because:
* The US isn't immune at all to regulatory capture [0]
* It's highly likely there are already existing regulations and laws that cover this but merely aren't being enforced (in which case, why would these new regulations be enforced either?)
* ISPs undoubtedly have a huge conflict of interest here
Which isn't to say that new laws are always a bad idea, more that they should be a measured response and not a knee-jerk reaction spawned by bad actors.
It's also far easier to point out badly crafted and/or ill-intentioned law proposals than it is to create effective and fair legislation, but both are necessary for the process to move forward.
That is, I think many people would agree with you (one need only read the comments on any of the threads about Equifax), but think this is basically an untenable place to start from.
Can we please lump the data leaks of Equifax and the like in with the need for these new laws that shift user data from something companies are mining to something they are protecting and disclosing?
If you don't regulate you allow bad players to keep doing bad things.
If you do regulate you force bad players to work harder to keep doing bad things.
I understand that regulation has negative side effects and unintended consequences. But truly free markets lead to child labor and depressed worker wages. It's impossible to craft perfect regulations, but it's implausible to assume "everything will just sort itself out if we let the free market be completely free" since that has literally never happened on a broad scale.
I mean, if people are deterred by regulation from making apps that don't respect people's data and privacy, I'd consider that a win. For far, far too long, the ethos has been to not worry or care about your users; to not protect their privacy, and to just vacuum up all their data so you can sell it. I'll be more than happy to see those days go away.
IF there is a war between ISPs and social networks maybe we get some benefits like the practices of ISPs and social networks getting more public for the regular person.
This article feels so slanted it's unreadable. Conceding that Facebook and Google probably actually do need to be regulated happens near the very bottom of the article; until then you'd be forgiven for thinking that the ISPs made all their concerns about those companies up.
And to worsen the legal system doesn't come to rescue. Infact they joined hand with business and created a bible size EULA with legal jargon, which end-user have to accept and move forward.
Techdirt really doesn't live up to its name. When that site isn't actively avoiding major stories that make Silicon Valley megacorps look bad, they're busily defending the Surveillance Valley business model outright.
The "ISPs are bad, therefore Silicon Valley should be allowed to continue running roughshod over users' privacy" narrative is really idiotic. It tries to present this as a situation where we have a choice of either regulating ISPs, or regulating privacy-invading Silicon Valley surveillance corporations, but not both.
Edit: I just read the full article, and yes maybe my assumption wasn't charitable. That said, I had just got done reading this article where Mike Masnick encourages us to continue giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has repeatedly violated trust for more than a decade, which left me assuming it would just be more of the same.
The people who make up the tech industry been a huge proponent of regulating all sorts of things at all scales, from individual actions to small businesses to large corporations.
The use of the FB/CA "scandal" to promote knee jerk legislation that burdens the tech industry is just tech being on the receiving end of something they have no qualms about advocating for when it happens to a different industry.
This is a bit like the old adage about noticing how bad news reporting is in areas you're an expert, but then just blindly swallowing all other news. In this case it's regulation rather than news coverage.
Silicon Valley brought this to itself. I used to warn of this before, too, that they can't continue to do "evil stuff" and expect to have people's backing when the governments will come after them to regulate them for whatever reason. But they continued because they saw that nobody leaves them over the crap they pull so they thought there must be no consequences to their anti-consumer moves.
The only downside I see is that governments will use this excuse to bring more censorship and anti-encryption laws, too, and I hate that Silicon Valley companies put is in a position where we have to either put up with their crap or side with governments and get some bad internet laws passed.
But right now, I think it's time to rein in on the Silicon Valley companies over their abuse of user data. Then we can deal with the abuse of user data by ISPs, data brokers, and everyone else. Ideally, this would be solved with a GDPR-like law, so that even ISPs "lose" in this scenario, and the consumers win. If we're lucky we may be able to stave off the government from trying to put an anti-encryption bill into the whole thing.
That's like what the game industry went through in the early 90s. When Mortal Kombat and the like were generating controversy and getting the attention of regulators, the industry proactively created the ESRB.
[+] [-] drawkbox|8 years ago|reply
It is obvious everywhere that massive PR pushes are going on and astroturfing to a heavy degree everywhere ISP competitors on the advertising/privacy/data space are.
Instead of innovating their way in with products people want and improving their networks so people pay more, the ISPs are trying to win this via bribing for legislation and mud slinging. They bought their way in with the ISP privacy protections being removed under the FCC to the FTC because they have more leverage there.
It is sad ISPs have resorted to this instead of innovating and creating products people want by improving them rather than trying to slow down competitors via bribing and lobbying.
ISPs were once a beacon of innovation bringing in broadband, now they are in the milking it phase.
[1] https://eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-is...
[2] https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-f...
[+] [-] ethbro|8 years ago|reply
For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy).
For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR).
I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular."
When it comes down to it, regulation promoting consumer privacy, price and TOS transparency, and access by new entrants to the market is almost always beneficial... to the consumer.
Because let's not kid ourselves that Facebook or Google are fundamentally different than someone who owns the last mile of your network connectivity.
Their current behavior might be (mostly) benevolent, but the centralization they've engineered means if they want to maximize monetization tomorrow...
[+] [-] ryandrake|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|8 years ago|reply
I don't remember this time period. Any examples?
[+] [-] tomc1985|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AmIFirstToThink|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] scottie_m|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wgerard|8 years ago|reply
* The US isn't immune at all to regulatory capture [0]
* It's highly likely there are already existing regulations and laws that cover this but merely aren't being enforced (in which case, why would these new regulations be enforced either?)
* ISPs undoubtedly have a huge conflict of interest here
Which isn't to say that new laws are always a bad idea, more that they should be a measured response and not a knee-jerk reaction spawned by bad actors.
It's also far easier to point out badly crafted and/or ill-intentioned law proposals than it is to create effective and fair legislation, but both are necessary for the process to move forward.
That is, I think many people would agree with you (one need only read the comments on any of the threads about Equifax), but think this is basically an untenable place to start from.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#United_Stat...
[+] [-] sambull|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carlmcqueen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lithos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkirklions|8 years ago|reply
I am not afraid of regulation but its an annoying burden to keep big players big, and small players non-existent.
Most people do not have the money or motivation I have, and those people lose out because of regulations.
Never let a good tragedy go to waste.
[+] [-] moate|8 years ago|reply
If you do regulate you force bad players to work harder to keep doing bad things.
I understand that regulation has negative side effects and unintended consequences. But truly free markets lead to child labor and depressed worker wages. It's impossible to craft perfect regulations, but it's implausible to assume "everything will just sort itself out if we let the free market be completely free" since that has literally never happened on a broad scale.
[+] [-] s73v3r_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simion314|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwyers|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bxg1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gargoyle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r00fus|8 years ago|reply
I support people's privacy - from all-of-the-above.
[+] [-] yalogin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macspoofing|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] walshemj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitrazor123|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quantized1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sqdbps|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AmIFirstToThink|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hulton|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sctb|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] 908087|8 years ago|reply
The "ISPs are bad, therefore Silicon Valley should be allowed to continue running roughshod over users' privacy" narrative is really idiotic. It tries to present this as a situation where we have a choice of either regulating ISPs, or regulating privacy-invading Silicon Valley surveillance corporations, but not both.
Edit: I just read the full article, and yes maybe my assumption wasn't charitable. That said, I had just got done reading this article where Mike Masnick encourages us to continue giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has repeatedly violated trust for more than a decade, which left me assuming it would just be more of the same.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180408/22400539590/faceb...
[+] [-] jklinger410|8 years ago|reply
Maybe read the article next time and not make such a low-effort comment.
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|8 years ago|reply
The use of the FB/CA "scandal" to promote knee jerk legislation that burdens the tech industry is just tech being on the receiving end of something they have no qualms about advocating for when it happens to a different industry.
[+] [-] Consultant32452|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
The only downside I see is that governments will use this excuse to bring more censorship and anti-encryption laws, too, and I hate that Silicon Valley companies put is in a position where we have to either put up with their crap or side with governments and get some bad internet laws passed.
But right now, I think it's time to rein in on the Silicon Valley companies over their abuse of user data. Then we can deal with the abuse of user data by ISPs, data brokers, and everyone else. Ideally, this would be solved with a GDPR-like law, so that even ISPs "lose" in this scenario, and the consumers win. If we're lucky we may be able to stave off the government from trying to put an anti-encryption bill into the whole thing.
[+] [-] Reedx|8 years ago|reply