Perhaps the way to get anti-regulation politicians on board with this is for someone to do what was done to Robert Bork and legally disclose lots of personal info on members of Congress/Parliament, obtained from data brokers and de-anonymized.
Perhaps the way to get anti-regulation politicians on board with this is for someone to do what was done to Robert Bork and legally disclose lots of personal info on members of Congress/Parliament, obtained from data brokers and de-anonymized.
Like imagine if China owned CNN and the New York Times and decided what stories they could publish.
Okay. Now imagine CNN and NYTimes and Fox News being coerced into publishing or not publishing info because a US gov agency demands it. Or how about the US gov pressuring Meta and Twitter to change their algos around very specific topics? You don't need to imagine it actually.
So why is that less of a concern than China controlling a media delivery service?
US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.
They don't want an adversary to have control. Is the distinction not obvious??
> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.
I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective.
> They don't want an adversary to have control.
Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?