Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Advertising Businesses Government Social Networks The Internet United States Politics Technology

Andrew Yang Wants To Tax Digital Ads, Launch a New Algorithm Regulator (theverge.com) 126

Posted by BeauHD from the new-way-of-doing-things dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: On Thursday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang put out a sweeping new tech policy proposal with a number of controversial proposals, including taxing digital ads and launching a new department to regulate algorithms on social networks. [...] In his Thursday blog post, Yang argues that his opponents' calls to break-up big tech firms like Facebook and Google fall short of protecting consumers from companies that prioritize "profits over our well-being." Yang's broad tech policy plan attacks the issues plaguing tech from four different angles: promoting a healthy relationship with tech, data ownership and privacy, fighting disinformation, and empowering the federal government with new guidelines and resources to tackle these issues.

Ever since the 2016 election, platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been under fire by public advocates and lawmakers for their failures to remove disinformation from their platforms. In his tech proposal, Yang piggybacks on his digital ads VAT, suggesting that if it were implemented, there would be less false information on social media because platforms would become subscription-based and not be forced to accept advertising at all, let alone misleading political ads. There would also be significant new restrictions on how platforms like Facebook can target users with content. Any algorithms used by "platforms that allow political advertisements or the sharing of news stories" would be required to be open source or at least confidentially shared with Yang's "Department of the Attention Economy." All ads would have to be clearly labeled as such. Yang says he would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- one of the most pivotal laws governing the internet -- but didn't specify what his amendment would look like.

He also pledges to pass a "Digital Bill of Rights, ensuring ownership of data, control over how it's used, and compensation for its use" if he is elected president. Consumers could choose to opt in to have their data collected. "But then you should receive a share of the economic value generated from your data," Yang says.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Andrew Yang Wants To Tax Digital Ads, Launch a New Algorithm Regulator More

Andrew Yang Wants To Tax Digital Ads, Launch a New Algorithm Regulator

Comments Filter:

  • ..and all of a sudden (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @11:41PM (#59415890)
    Google: No results containing all your search terms were found.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )
      Wouldn't be the first time that Google has acted shady. Tulsi Gabbard has sued Google [nytimes.com] because they suspended her ability to advertise on their platform at a suspect time.

      I generally like Yang as far as candidates go (or at least more than the rest of the field) but I think this idea is just doomed to failure. It's one of those rules that wants to try to force the world to be a way that the world has no apparent interest in being and as a result ends up accomplishing nothing because try as you might you c

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Kind of a bizarre lawsuit. Wouldn't be surprised if it gets thrown out quickly by the judge.

        Think about what she is arguing. Google infringed her free speech rights, and the only such right is from the 1st Amendment which doesn't apply to businesses except in extremely limited circumstances. If she somehow did argue that Google ads were such a circumstance then Google wouldn't be able to keep charging for them, and the whole internet would collapse as paid advertising became a constitutional violation.

        • If Google did this to help her political opposition, that could be serious in two ways.

          1. It probably violates their statements of fairness somewhere.
          2. It's to help that opposition, which is fine by itself. However, is it because of fears of more investigations by those politicians, then it is a First Amendment violation...by those politicians. Also, people are screaming any activity that helps a candidate and is more than 0 value is a campaign contribution that must be declared. That itself seems like

          • Yes, it's a contribution to someone else's campaign. We need to get serious about that stuff if we're going to care about "money in politics" - what you're really worried about is "influence".

            Frankly, I think Google should be forced to bake the cake.

      • Needs more favorable moderation, but I never get a mod point to give. But mostly I wish I'd seen the story before it's time was half gone.

        Intent is the key, but we already know their intention: PROFIT.

        That's what companies are programmed to do. Maximize profit. It's not that a corporation is any sort of human being with personal malice. It's just that the corporations are programmed to crush anything that gets in the way of more profit. They don't think. They just crush. Like cancers.

        Yang's point is that go

    • I don't think so. The are more search engines. Stopping the search engine part would make Google obsolete quite fast.

      • The are more search engines.

        Yes, but can you name one ?

        Answer: probably yes. You're likely to cite duckduckgo.com, qwant.com, and a bunch of other that you even use today for their non-tracking properties, in addition to more mainstream ones like bing.com, yandex.com, baidu.cn, etc.
        Because you're a /. geek like everyone else.
        And you'll probably recommend it to your direct family if needed.

        But can your neighbor Joe 6-pack name another search engine ?
        Answer: That's going to be tricky. He's the kind of guy who think "google" is a transit

        • Re:Google replacement (Score:5, Informative)

          by fuzznutz ( 789413 ) on Friday November 15, 2019 @10:33AM (#59416724)
          Google rose to prominence quickly and destroyed the other search engines because it was objectively better. At a time when other search engines were becoming "information portals" and taken on obnoxious banner advertising, flashing ads and pop ups, Google just did search and did it well. Back in the day people would sift through pages and pages of results to find what they needed. Along comes Google and it finds exactly what you want and often in the first few links. Nobody would have believed at the time that they would utterly decimate the Yahoo juggernaut. After all, Yahoo advertised on the Superbowl.

          Google now seems hellbent on making their search results objectively worse. They want to inject politics and hide opinions they oppose. They hide autocompletion results for things they don't approve. They demote results for arbitrary reasons. Results for clearly enumerated search terms "appear" to return SJW results. Even if not intentional, they are not responsive to the query. Google has lost its way. It does not give what you want, only what they think you should have.

          While Google may be the 800 lb gorilla today, the door is now wide open for its successor. Each reduction in usability and utility opens that door a little wider.

  • they dont get it do they (Score:5, Insightful)

    by johnjones ( 14274 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @11:45PM (#59415894) Homepage Journal

    literally in an instant all digital advertising will be run out of isle of man or bermuda or X or Y

    its a tax haven / regulation haven

    you cant regulate them,

    the reason why USA has these companies is because USA dont have any regulation

    • so you can get away with anything as long as you can afford a good lawyer.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Why does it matter where the campaign is run from? Their HQ is in the US, their staff are in the US.

      Look at how the EU regulates them. They can't just claim "oh we are not in the EU, sorry your laws don't apply" because they have offices and registered businesses in the EU. They have to in order to do business in our extremely lucrative market.

    • To an extent. Moving is difficult and costly, though. The trick is to try and keep the cost of regulation low enough that companies judge that a move isn't worth the trouble. Obviously you also have to balance this against the need for certain things to be regulated, e.g. public safety, privacy, etc.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • literally in an instant all digital advertising will be run out of isle of man or bermuda or X or Y

      its a tax haven / regulation haven

      you cant regulate them,

      the reason why USA has these companies is because USA dont have any regulation

      Such a model would be performing a service for their American sister company/branch, a service with a value, a value that could be taxed on the American branch that benefits from the advertisment.

  • Yang argues that his opponents' calls to break-up big tech firms like Facebook and Google fall short of protecting consumers from companies that prioritize "profits over our well-being."

    I was under the impression that it was more about busting up monopolies but why not implement both measures?

    • You could fork Google, not Facebook (Score:5, Interesting)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Friday November 15, 2019 @12:34AM (#59415970) Journal

      Unfortunately the network effects are so strong with Facebook that a monopoly is nearly guaranteed, and it works best - if the monopoly platform doesn't abuse its position.

      It may be that another platform will take over from Facebook, that may be happening, but at some point they'd need to hit critical mass where that was the network where all your friends are. Wherever your friends and family are, that's the social network they'll all use. It doesn't make sense to use the third most popular mass-market social network.

      Where we may see some competition is niches, such as LinkedIn being the professional social network site. Other companies could pick up niches, but for mass-market the most popular one is going to be where everyone goes.

      • Unfortunately the network effects are so strong with Facebook that a monopoly is nearly guaranteed, and it works best - if the monopoly platform doesn't abuse its position.

        It may be that another platform will take over from Facebook, that may be happening, but at some point they'd need to hit critical mass where that was the network where all your friends are. Wherever your friends and family are, that's the social network they'll all use. It doesn't make sense to use the third most popular mass-market social network.

        Where we may see some competition is niches, such as LinkedIn being the professional social network site. Other companies could pick up niches, but for mass-market the most popular one is going to be where everyone goes.

        I don't think many will argue you that "they'd need to hit critical mass where that was the network where all your friends are"

        Another piece of the puzzle is that it is easy to add an additional social network without cutting off the current.

        Check out a new option, learn that perhaps it may not exist solely to exploit you and your personal information for targeted advertising and even political manipulation (allegedly)

        Tell me there are no ads, tell me there is no tracking, tell me about encryption. tell me

        • > Tell me there are no ads, tell me there is no tracking, tell me about encryption. tell me about how you safeguard customer/client data and do not sell it ever.

          > Yeah I might check it out.

          How much are you willing to pay to check out RayBook?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Break Facebook up. Split off the different parts and regulate their use of data. Introduce data portability so it's easy for users to move to other sites but keep in contact with their friends and groups.

        • > Split off the different parts and regulate their use of data.

          Some data regulations are good, sure. We have some good ones, some changes might be in order. Which "different parts" do you think should be broken up? The part you are on should be separate from the part your sister is on? Then you need to log in to a different one to see your friend's post?

          There are two ways to break up a monopoly, horizontally and vertically. Ma Bell was broken up the way a cell divides, creating several matching regiona

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Break up advertising an the social network side. Put strict limits on what data can be used for targeting.

            • Hmm. So Adbook Inc would buy advertising spots from FacebookSocial Inc, and resell them?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                Something like that. The key is to create reasons for the one holding all the valuable data to keep to safe and limit access to it. It also opens the market up because other companies can compete on a level playing field.

          • Facebook can be broken up into a a number of companies. For example: Instagram; WhatsApp; the advertising company; server hosting company; networking company (as they own a fair bit of fibre); market research company; any projects that they have ongoing can be split off; any other area where they have a large in house service; and finally the Facebook site and Messenger app. Any companies that Facebook has purchased could be spawned off if they have left to work fairly independently.

            There are lots of ways t

            • > server hosting company; networking company (as they own a fair bit of fibre); market research company; any projects that they have ongoing can be split off; any other area where they have a large in house service; and finally the Facebook site and Messenger app

              What good would that do? They'd still have precisely the same degree of monopoly in social media. Does the world need yet another hosting company for some reason?
              .

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      In the UAS you have the right to publish and not have the tools of that publication taken away by gov/mil/one side of politics/an NGO/a think tank...
      Its called freedom of speech and freedom of the press..
  • No tax shelters offshore. You advertise here you pay here. That will finally kill the blight that is ads on the net.

    • Re:100% ad tax, yay! I'm voting for him! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Friday November 15, 2019 @04:26AM (#59416196) Homepage

      That will finally kill the blight that is ads on the net.

      Which will create an internet where everything is behind a paywall, and there's already enough of those as it is.

      Yang's UBI scheme is basically bullshit unless you're unemployed and flat broke. For anyone who does earn any sort of living, all of that "free money" is going to go right back out towards all the taxes, tariffs and other changes (like having to "subscribe" to Facebook) Yang is proposing to pay for the UBI.

      • Which will create an internet where everything is behind a paywall, and there's already enough of those as it is.

        Exactly! Advertising pays for content, online or otherwise. Rather than eliminate advertising, let's impose a standard of implementation quality on it: no popups, no malware, no dog-slow ad servers that prevent the whole page from loading, no autoplaying videos.

    • No tax shelters offshore. You advertise here you pay here. That will finally kill the blight that is ads on the net.

      Or... It will kill the internet as we know it.

      Also, tell me how you plan to enforce this? If I go to a website hosted in Canada then how is the federal government going to collect this tax? Or prevent this website from getting through if they don't pay the tax?

      I like Yang, he's probably the only candidate running (at least with more than 1% polling right now) that has a workable energy plan. This idea of a tax on internet advertising is making me not like him so much. The President can't impose any tax,

      • Ads aren't special. They're just income. Tax it. And why should it be a problem if that kills the net as we know it? The net as we know it sucks. It's a hive of villainy and scum. I'd rather pay an extra $10 a month or what for my net and the content providers can charge my provider some access fee I don't have to see. We already have pay walled content up the wazoo for movies and tv online. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Disney and dozens of smaller ones. The world didn't explode when they started chargin

    • Internet ads are probably hit with sales taxes already. Not that I'm in favour of the ads but it sounds like one of those promises made because it sounds good rather than being a good policy.

  • - Andrew Yang is polling at about 3%. [politico.com]
    - We have free speech, which means you can't tax speech [britannica.com], which probably means you can't tax ads. You will have to jump a lot of high court hurdles to even try.
    - Even if it weren't unconstitutional, it would have to pass congress. Would that happen?

    Most of these candidates' proposals aren't meant to actually happen. They're just a sales pitch.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by virtualXTC ( 609488 )
        People are so sick of Trump that they are voting for the guy who is least likely to be taken down by one of his lies or chants. Sanders and Warren while, better people, seem like easy targets for anti-socialism fear-mongering. And Trump has already shown us once that Fear is a better motivator than positivity. That said, you really should check out Buttigieg; on any given policy, he's a much stronger candidate than Yang and has a good mix of insider/outsiderness.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Biden polls well because most people are idiots trying to play some sort of prisoner's dilemma game over electability. If people would just honestly answer who they want to win and not give a fuck about whether the candidate is likely to convert any current Trump supporters, Biden probably would be polling near the bottom.

          • Biden polls well because most people are idiots trying to play some sort of prisoner's dilemma game over electability. If people would just honestly answer who they want to win and not give a fuck about whether the candidate is likely to convert any current Trump supporters, Biden probably would be polling near the bottom.

            Or maybe Biden polls so well because he's not a complete socialist. Sanders and Warren are socialists, and they admit this. While there might be quite a few registered Democrats that want socialism it's not all of them.

            What the Democrat Party has for candidates right now is just the saddest bunch I have ever seen. The top three are all over 70, white, and millionaires. For a party that complains of "old rich white men" running the country for too long this is rather odd. Warren might not fit this mould

            • Warren looks old af. She looks just like my HS English teacher; that bitch was born old!

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Hasaf ( 3744357 )
                And here we go again. . . judging people for their appearance instead of their ideas.

                • I am going to guess you don't make the same call for higher debate when it comes to "president cheeto" or other appearance insults levied against Trump.

                   

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jbengt ( 874751 )

              Sanders and Warren are socialists, and they admit this.

              Not true. Sanders calls him self a democratic socialist, but Warren insists that she is a capitalist. Neither of them advocate for the government to own or control the means of production.

            • Here's one thing these candidates running will have to do, convert over some Trump supporters.

              Only candidate who seems to have much luck in this department is Yang. Turns out, a lot of Trump supporters like free shit after they find out they'll be on the receiving end.

              There's little reason for a Trump supporter to vote for "Trump lite". If I had a well paying job, good health benefits, owned a typical suburban house, and wasn't gay - I'd probably still think Trump is an idiot, but it wouldn't be a deal-breaker on election day. I've said it before: as much as the news goes on about over-sensationa

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: In no particular order (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Friday November 15, 2019 @09:29AM (#59416518) Journal

          People are so sick of Trump that they are voting for the guy who is least likely to be taken down by one of his lies or chants.

          "People" aren't sick of Trump, the same leftists who didn't vote for him in the first place still don't like him, which is no big deal. (Though I suppose they are sick of losing to him, and sick of seeing their magical coolshame weapons not work on him.)

          The people who were sick of the status quo and therefore were willing to vote for Trump are still sick of your antics, so ramping your antics up even more these last few years sure hasn't changed that.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by 110010001000 ( 697113 )

              Polls are completely unreliable as we have seen in the past few elections. Polls are now used as a weapon to attempt to control behavior.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

              Polls are pretty consistent in showing majorities for impeachment, and even before that Trump wasn't even the most popular candidate at the last election.

              WHAT polls? What polls are you checking?

              Actual polls - according to FiveThirtyEight's tracking of polls [fivethirtyeight.com] - show a very brief moment when support for impeachment (that is, holding an impeachment trial in the Senate, which is distinct from removing Trump from office) hit a majority. But it's mostly been fairly steady at around 48%. Support for removing Trump from office has NEVER hit a majority.

              The impeachment hearings are a farce and people know that. Support for them has been dropping slightly recently, but

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Kohath ( 38547 )

              Polls are of the general public. Electors representing states elect the President. Nationwide polls of the general public (or even of likely voters) aren't going to tell you how Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio voters are going to vote.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by DogDude ( 805747 )
            If you're not sick of Trump at this point, you've got a screw loose. He's an awful, awful individual that is an embarrassment to anybody with an IQ over room temperature.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Look up some other polls. Andrew Yang isn't doing great in any of them.

      • It just shows how out of touch people on Slashdot are that they think Biden ISN'T at the top of the polls. Literally no one out of the tech community knows who Andrew Yang even is (and I barely do).

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Do you mean that there's no sales taxes on books, newspapers, or magazines or their subscriptions in the US? Anywhere at all?

      I'm willing to bet that ads (on the Internet, for TV, on the radio, or in print) are already being taxed via sales tax.

  • And a couple of stories down the same people are vehemently objecting to the federal government, calling them Nazis and demanding power devolve to the local level. WTF people, do you have no self-awareness? I quote:

    These Nazis genital lickers need more than a slap on the wrist, a chilling message regarding the consequences of fascism and corruption needs to be sent to posterity such that people shiver in memory of what was down to these Hitler clowns and it never is revisited upon us again for the span of l

    • I quote:

      These Nazis genital lickers need more than a slap on the wrist, [...]

      Dude, are you quoting yourself?

      • No, other leftists on the FCC discussion a few stories down. Sure sounds like crazy right-wing rhetoric, doesn't it? That's because it is, and hearing leftists parrot it is the height of craziness.

        • No, other leftists on the FCC discussion a few stories down.

          Uh huh, sure.

          Sure sounds like crazy right-wing rhetoric, doesn't it?

          Not especially.

          That's because it is, and hearing leftists parrot it is the height of craziness.

          Nazis are petty uniformly disliked except by the far right. How have you not noticed this?

  • Andrew Yang, Andrew Yang, Andrew Yang. It's a good thing there is only one candidate for the presidency, otherwise slashdot would have to write stories about all of them...

    • Of all of them, he is really the only one who could be considered a futurist. It isn't that there aren't others, of course there are, or that their proposals don't matter, but Yang has a much more tech oriented angle than the res, so it makes sense that he'd pop up on this site more often.

      • Of all of them, he is really the only one who could be considered a futurist.

        A future where there isn't enough work for everyone to do, so we're forced to tax the productive to pay for the dregs sounds like a dystopia.

        When we've solved every single problem that requires human labor, then we can talk about giving people money to sit on their ass. Hell, in the woods across the street from my neighborhood, there's a giant pile of trash from homeless garbage scavengers. There's street lights that don't work, potholes that need filling, and don't even get me started on the kudzu and ig

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ChatHuant ( 801522 )

          A future where there isn't enough work for everyone to do, so we're forced to tax the productive to pay for the dregs sounds like a dystopia.

          This sentence defines your philosophy - you're a regular bleeding heart, aren't you? Except your heart doesn't bleed at the thought of human suffering, but at the thought that poor people (which you obviously despise) won't suffer enough. You justify this hatred via lies and vile rationalizations.

          You fear the "productive" people will be taxed - but that's a lie. What you mean, is "rich people will be taxed" - because there are lots of rich people who aren't productive at all, and even more who are certainly

          • "the thought of human suffering, but at the thought that poor people (which you obviously despise) won't suffer enough."

            Conflating work with suffering is retarded. We are not talking about slavery here (unless you are talking about allowing illegal immigration to work below minimum wage which is really an argument to crack down on illegal immigration).

            Eliminating work will not magically create a Star Trek Commitopia. It will leave behind a shit hole Slab City.

          • Yeah, that about sums up what I thought, but didn't think it was worth the effort. 'The dregs' is a pretty terrible and dehumanizing way to refer to people out of work due to increased automation. Sounds like some real short sighted Randroid bullshit.

            I grew up pretty poor (guess I'm one of the dregs), but I'm a scientist now and I'd like to think a productive, contributing member of society. While things certainty haven't been the most ideal, I am grateful for the societal help I was able to receive alo

          • The bulk of your rant is based on an incorrect assumption that I have some sort of problem with people who are poor. Today, most social safety nets exist to help people get back to becoming productive members of society, or to take care of those who (for whatever reason) are incapable of working. I strongly support such safety nets.

            If we (because it's a Democracy) allow society become broken in a way that it no longer provides enough opportunities for able-bodied workers to provide for themselves, and the

      • Of all of them, he is really the only one who could be considered a futurist.

        In what sense? You mean the fact that he likes to talk up how he's going to fix all these technological problems in the future which we probably won't even recognise by the time they roll around, nor have a solution to, let alone a simple political one?

        Please, the guy's just trying to get kudos points for talking about something the others aren't.

        It's just a marketing tactic, that sounds pretty good the first time you hear it - until you realise he's just talking off a script, and a fairly narrow one at t

    • Give Yang credit for being the one candidate from any party who cares about science and technology. We need a lot more of those. When other Democrats even mention the subject, it's always in the context of something scary that they want to ban without thinking.

  • How about some freedom from gov (Score:4, Informative)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Friday November 15, 2019 @02:19AM (#59416078) Journal
    That right to publish, be the press.
    Review a movie, comment on politics, post a funny cartoon, meme, tv clip.
    Why this need to gov "regulate" one side of politics?
    Add more tax to then censor more? To pay for the good censor?
    Who is going to be the "regulator? The US gov? Saying what can and cant be published as a political joke?
    Ex and former US gov workers in a "think tank" on what a joke is and how funny it is?
    NATO workers on what a political cartoon, meme, comment is or is not in the USA?
    Should 24/7 shift workers in Germany and France study funny US art and then remove US citizens content in the name of the USA gov?
    That work as published belongs to a US citizen. Not the US gov, not NATO, not some think tank...
    Their hours of work to publish. Not some gov, mil, nation to then have a political "feeling" that it a US citizens work and tools to be censored...
    Thats taking their tools and ability to publish away... something protected in the USA from a gov/mil/other nations...
    5 eye nations experts on the amount of politics in a meme?
    Some outside experts? To keep the amount of comedy low and no LOL at one side of failed politics? Why the rush to the good censor? Let people use the right to publish their own content free from gov "regulation".
    In the free market quality will fail or rise by user approval not gov workers, other nations govs, the mil, think tanks, experts...
    The freedman right to publish, comment, be the "press" without having to beg one side of US politics over a published joke, meme, work of art, cartoon.
    Too funny that year for politics... so the gov gets to "regulate" that art off the internet with the help of the good censor?
    Comments on Communist China too? Cults? Wealthy people get to remove content? A brands junk DRM, product, service? A not good movie review?
    Can they all call in the US gov to "regulate" comments away like one side of US politics want to do?

    Go back to freedom of speech and freedom after speech. People will move towards what they like, support find funny, want, need, will pays for.
    No big gov art, joke regulators needed. The free market will move content, not some gov, NGO, think tanks, NATO, EU gov... US gov "joke" expert.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Your signature is complaining about mass surveillance by the government, but you don't seem to care about mass surveillance by corporations.

      Use of your personal data should be regulated. Algorithms that make decisions about you should be regulated. They are in the EU under GDPR and it's great. We don't have the kind of abuse you do in the US, and it's quick shocking to us when Americans talk about that abuse as if it's inevitable and there isn't anything they can do about it.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re "mass surveillance by corporations." This is about one side of US politics saying what people can publish due to political regulation...
        In the USA people have freedom of speech, the freedom to publish, the freedom to comment and the freedom to the tools of publication.
        The gov cannot take the ability to publish away under rules and regulations. The USA in not West Germany. Not the UK using a D notice... Not France...
        The "press" is also give direct protection from the US gov and politics...
        Nothing to

  • ...because as we all know, political appointees, Congresspeople, lawyers, and bureaucrats are well versed in such matters. /sarc.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      A meme test for the gov AI to consider.
      Too funny? Time for the good censor to make all publication of that content go away.
      Too political? Time for the good censor and report the user to the gov.
      Part of the big gov regulator on all internet speech.
      Unless in support of one side of US politics. Then its gov approved activism...

    • Trotsky did a good job describing the difference between correctness and political correctness. His ideas were tyrannical, for sure, but nobody thought a US politician would one day seek to impose them on all media.

  • That's all we need to know.

    • Yang is a communist at heart and all his proposals need to be viewed through that lens. No doubt the end result would be more government interference and regulation in something better left alone. In fact that is likely his unstated goal.

      There is no real reason for this other than for the agency controlling the revenue to accrue political power. This is not a good thing.

  • Businesses will just pass those taxes onto the consumers in increased cost like they always do, so in effect we will be charged for the annoying ads we try so hard to avoid or at least to ignore.

    Here's a radical idea stop trying to tax everything.

  • Taxing ads is troublesome enough (where is the constitutional authority for it? They aren't tariffs and they aren't income).

    Second, the description admits the purpose is to affect the kinds of speech. That is also fobidden.

    Third, the description admits it will have a monstrous effect on amounts of speech...negatively. That is also forbidden.

    This crap is as DOA as Kamala Harris' desire to hurt twitter if they don't censor her political opponents as they hyperventillate.

  • Ah yes, taxing and regulating political speech; that's a great idea. What could go wrong?

    Sure, there might be naysayers, but it's not as though we codified any actual principles about this into a foundational document, to prevent the madness of crowds from messing with it. Carry on!

  • This isn't the first time Yang has called for a monopoly government to decide what is acceptably true or not by imposition of a tech orthodoxy. His "fake news" speeches are downright Orwellian, except with a jolly, friendly smile.

    Andrew Yang considered dangerous.

  • I like his plans for a trickle-up economy and how he is the only one with a real plan to deal with the 4th industrial revolution. He is the least bad of all the candidates and he is someone who has at least some understanding of tech and science unlike most of the others.
    • Because he doesn't want to enforce anti trust laws. Yeah chip off the old laissez faire capitalism block.

      What his plan does nothing to address is the oversize influence such companies have over our government. Think military industrial complex. The point of break up monopolies is to eliminate the power that these behemoth corporations have.

      One oligarch support another oligarch, eh Yang...
  • Democrats: You have a problem? We got a tax for that!
  • the issue i see is abuse of a potential new legal framework, and censorship of not only what can be coded, but what and how people are allowed to interact with software as it becomes its own perdon / legsl entity , and starts to ''develop'' rights, like not being able to modify it without issue, or face repursussions for creating better software that isn't encumbered by issues the regulated stuff will have/run or it on platforms that are signed architectures, this could very well generate a new type of cri
  • Only tax animated ads, and tax them to kingdom come.
  • We have definitely reached the point where parodies are just about impossible to distinguish from reality. I would have pegged this one as an attempt to smear Yang by claiming he promoted a ludicrous policy. Oops.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware." -- Norm, from _Cheers_

Close