The outcry to regulate big tech
companies is getting louder! There are several questions. One is: Should sites
like Facebook be held accountable for their site’s content? Yes… by their
customers. Customers know more about the good and bad of the content than do
government regulators, and government regulators have their own agendas and
biases. So we should proceed cautiously before regulating content. Should
government limit big tech’s collection and use of big data? This question should
become moot after a few years, as blockchain is likely to give customers
control of their data. Between now and then, the best thing to do for customers
is provide them with transparency. Should the government break up big tech? That
makes no practical sense. Which of your friends do you want kicked off
Facebook? Do you want your Google searches diverted to Ask.com? Or your
Amazon purchases diverted to Walmart? If the government did break up one or more
companies, customer choice would put them back together. What’s the bottom line? In
fast moving markets, customers and competition are the best regulators. Do
you think big tech should be more regulated? Let us know your comments. Also,
let us know what other topics you’d like for our scholars to cover in 60 seconds,
and be sure to like and subscribe for more research and videos from AEI.

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

20 thoughts on “Should big tech be regulated? | IN 60 SECONDS”

  1. How does blockchain allow customers to control their own data? I think it’s likely to make privacy issues worse. Block chain is good keeping a decentralized list of transactions, and it requires that literally every transaction you make is tracked on a distributed ledger. If your identity is tied to your id, your online activity can be traced with an extremely high degree of confidence, and there’s no way to erase it. While it’s nice to not need to rely on a centralized authority, a lot of potential applications for block chain technology seem antithetical to a private, anonymous web.

  2. When you say customer choice will put companies back together if they are broken up, is that an argument for or against doing so?

  3. Wouldn't it be cool if somebody in the Department of Justice woke up and remembered the antitrust legislation we've had on the books for more than a century, then started actually applying it for a change.

  4. Mark, tech companies NEED to be regulated. I'm not saying to regulate individual users. For example it's an atrocity that certain European countries are trying to enforce Facebook to enforce "hate speech laws", for example (and I say this as an European). But general regulation for how they HANDLE things like data, etc. is definitely needed, just like you need regulation to uphold internet neutrality (well, I know AEI is already against that, but it's just another reason why the network is completely idiotic when it comes to issues like this).

    And I'm saying this as a computer engineer that works with development.

  5. Given the high level of taxation, the success of many companies is as much due to the tax avoidance strategy of their business model, as it is to their technological innovation. I strongly suspect that all of these companies that had many years prior to any profits, such as Amazon, Facebook, Twitter essentially avoided income taxation by strategies that allowed them to divert profits into network assets. Although Google became nominally profitable quickly, the extent of the taxable income was probably held down by the same techniques. Given the situation where efficiency of lobbying scales up with the size of the company, I'd argue that to hope to have a free market, we need to structure taxation and regulation to have a larger burden on big companies, so that the natural tendency would be larger companies to break up into smaller, competitive companies. But, for the same reason there is little reason to hope that such an effort would be politically successful.

  6. I don’t think the people are facebooks customers. Facebooks customers are the advertisers. The people are the products. If you don’t like Facebook then don’t use it

  7. Federal gov should keep their nose out of it. Matter of fact, the more the Feds have their hands, noses, and butts out of the issues, the better.

  8. There was nothing about free speech, that is the point, it is just like a restaurant saying that they will not serve republicans, Is that legal? I think not. No opinions should be censored that are not outright calls for violence or for second class treatment of a peoples or group, There needs to be a very high bar to remove something for hate speech. A Muslim or Christian saying they are against gay relationship is not hate speech. Inciting to kill gays is. Not liking gays is not. Social media is the new soap box in the public square and should be treated that way by statute.

  9. this guy is jsut yet another proponent of british free-trade, "laissez-faire" capitalism. this is in total opposition to american tradition which is dirigism, under washington, lincoln, roosevelt, regulation was never a naughty word, it's simply one of the only uses for government, if government doesn't regulate your economy you might as well call yourselves anarchists. of course mercer, koch and the likes won't like it, which is why all the sold out people in congress, and mr marc here, will never be pro-regulation and will continue with the preposterous bullshit of "customers regulate big business"!

  10. The regulations that were in place that protected us are gone. The Net Neutrality ensured this. But that is gone. ISPs can record and sell peoples data, facebook can record your cookies, it's not that breaking the companies up are the issue. It's the fact that congress, Trump, and house member are letting these privacy repeals get by and take a large margin in their own pockets. ISPs can do as they please, consumers are losing. That's what needs to be regulated business recording and storing of a persons data.

  11. this was one of your worst videos… horrible arguments out of touch with reality. users have no power over tech companies. even if we don't use their services, they still have data about us. I cannot control what other people do with my personal information, and that is a huge problem.

  12. The blockchain point does seem odd to me as data mining by companies encompass a lot more than financial transactions but the rest of his points are spot on. It's scary how many people are disliking this video. Why so many young techies who seem to be embracing libertarianism in many ways want to trust an out-of-touch slow-moving government with regulation of tech baffles me.

  13. Don't regulate big tech.

    Just remove the many favors and state-granted privileges the government provides to businesses at the expense of workers and consumers.

  14. Google and Facebook by virtue of being through the door early have set up some insurmountable barriers to entry for any would be competitor wishing to enter the market.

  15. Having users of social media regulate other uses of social media quickly turns into a witch hunt for those who don't follow a mob mentality.

    I honestly don't believe that social media companies should be held directly responsible for what their users say or do. That being said, how much more fair to the user would it be if they hired third party professionals to screen complaints?

    It would help streamline a reporting process and make it easier to sift for legitimacy. Currently, they deferring the decision making process to their own PC, ad driven beuracracy, the users themselves, or some freaking logorithm propelled AI.

  16. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. Ronald Reagan
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ronald_reagan_109938

  17. They are not the best regulator, that is incorrect when the service is a must in our society. They control speech and freedom therefore they need to be chained just like we are by laws.

  18. Anyone who restricts or limits another's first amendment rights, should be deemed a criminal and should be thrown in jail and fined heavily!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *