The frontier era of the Internet appears to be coming to a close at last, thanks in part to a wily veteran of the KGB.
By spreading fake new stories and purchasing a few hundred thousand bucks of ads through online giants Facebook and Google, Russian president Vladimir Putin not only undermined the credibility of a bitter US election. He also made it easier to think the once-unthinkable — that the Internet needs the federal government to keep itself honest.
A coalition of senators including Democrats Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Warner of Virginia and Republican John McCain of Arizona proposed new legislation that would monitor Internet political advertising in much the same way TV ads are tracked. The Honest Ads Act is a relatively modest bill, but it comes 11 years after the Federal Election Commission rejected virtually all regulation of political campaign ads on the Internet. How times have changed.
It’s the latest bid to regulate the online giants similar to the way old-economy titans of steel, oil, and railroading were reined in by federal law in the 20th century. For years, politicians rightly worried about stunting the newborn Internet with government mandates. But now that Facebook and Google are wealthier than many entire countries, politicians from the left and right are singing a different tune.
“There is an emerging feeling in the country, especially among our leaders, that these companies have too much power,” said Nicco Mele, director of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University’s Kennedy School. And so the backlash begins.
One bill would force Internet companies to shut down sex-trafficking ads. Another would require them to get explicit permission before collecting or selling our personal information, which could undermine the core business model of Facebook and Google.
Some critics, like President Donald Trump’s former chief adviser Steve Bannon, have called for regulating Facebook and Google as public utilities, like the old Bell telephone companies. Others want to use antitrust laws to impose strict limits on their business practices — the same fate that befell mighty Microsoft Corp. in the early 2000s. The European Union pointed the way earlier this year when it fined Google $2.7 billion and demanded a halt to advertising practices the EU deemed unfair.
Others, such as Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, favor a government-ordered breakup of these titans.
Still, nobody has devised a unified strategy, mainly because tech companies are so different from the giant firms of old that it’s not clear how to regulate them.
Bala Iyer, a Babson College dean, recently coauthored an article on the problem for the Harvard Business Review. “I’m not a big fan of these regulation armies that people are proposing,” said Iyer. “How can you regulate something that you don’t understand?”
Traditional antitrust thinking focuses on a company’s share of revenue-generating markets. For instance, Google has a near-monopoly on Internet search advertising and Facebook dominates in social networking.
But to Iyer, what really matters are these companies’ immense stockpiles of personal data about billions of people. The sheer volume of this information gives Google and Facebook their unprecedented power.
“Follow the data,” said Iyer. “Make sure they don’t use the data in a manner that advantages only them.”
One way: Whenever Facebook or Google acquire new businesses that collect data about users, they should face restrictions on how they use the data. For example, the Justice Department could have prevented Google from pooling its data with WhatsApp when it acquired the messaging service in 2014 for $19 billion. That would have reduced WhatsApp’s information advantage over competitors.
Though less intrusive than others, Iyer’s proposal is still well beyond where we were just a a few years ago. Applying a light touch to the Internet has paid off handsomely for the US, and I hate to see the Feds increasing the pressure. But when it’s a choice between the US Congress or Russian intelligence, that seems an easy call.
China’s number two leader appealed Wednesday for support for free trade and promised to improve conditions for foreign companies.Continue reading »
New England Building Supply, whose truck caused the incident, won’t reimburse residents because it says the wires were too low.Continue reading »
Samuels & Associates’ participation could help move forward stalled plans to build 656 apartments and condos.Continue reading »
New Hampshire’s Owen Simoes is among a growing class of “kidtrepreneurs” who design websites, sell goods, and manage social media accounts.Continue reading »
The Merrimack Valley disaster could give locked-out union workers leverage over a company that doesn’t want to risk a catastrophe of its own.Continue reading »
The rate hike for customers was supposed to take effect while the utility is responding to a gas catastrophe in the Merrimack Valley.Continue reading »
Cambridge wants to adopt rules to allow Bird, Lime, and other scooter rentals back in. But a state law is in the way.Continue reading »
Economists caution that employees in their 50s and 60s still face formidable hurdles from companies that are chasing young talent and are wary of gray hair.Continue reading »
There’s a new CEO, a new look, and a new name (kind of) at Hunneman.Continue reading »