The Wall Street Journal had a recent article proposing the 5 tech priorities for the next administration. This was before news of the latest cyber intrusion hit the news and the seriousness of this intrusion into government servers has yet to be fully determined. I happened to discover an interesting thing about news articles from paywalled sources. I can access the WSJ through our Apple+ subscription, but I discovered that by searching for the title of news articles, one can find them from other outlets (try Joe Biden’s 5 Tech Priorities). I have no explanation, but I can verify that I found several word for word sources for the WSJ article.
Anyway, the article listed these issues and speculated what the Biden’s position might be.
Section 230: Section 230 of the Communications Decency act protects services such as Facebook from responsibility for the content posted by users. This is commonly described as the difference between a platform and a publisher. It is a little more complicated as 230 also allows platforms to make good faith decisions in addressing what might be harmful content. Section 230 has become politicized by Republicans claiming that the host companies discriminate against conservative content and there are more general concerns that the application of algorithms that prioritize content implies something similar to publishing. The intent of 230 was to encourage innovation in the online space and it is hard to argue that this has not been the case. Those against protected status also suggest that backing away from the present approach will harm smaller content providers more than the big companies who can afford both lawyers and occasional penalties further limiting innovation. According to the article, the Biden administration is likely to pursue an evaluation of 230.
Net Neutrality: The concept of net neutrality argues that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot differentiate the source of bits requested by consumers. Because so many customers have limited options for Internet access, normal processes of competition do not allow protection for consumers. So, for example, a cable company could prioritize video it was selling and slow video provided from other sources. The Obama administration supported net neutrality. The Trump administration opposed net neutrality. The administration in power controls the 3-2 makeup of the FCC. When the Biden administration appoints the new committee chair, look for a return to the expectation that Internet providers act as common carriers.
AI – the complex and powerful models that control many algorithms have accomplished amazing things, but also have led to concerns of bias. There is international competition of great importance in this sphere, but little effort in this country to consider how or if AI should be regulated. The WSJ offered little in the way of prediction beyond identifying these issues.
China: China is an obvious competitor in developing and deploying technology and obviously has different ways if deploying the capabilities of technology in surveillance. The Trump administration challenged Chinese companies (e.g., Huawei) and products. China also dictates terms to U.S. companies wanting to offer online services in the Chinese market. Our interaction with China complicated by the reality that China manufactures many technology products bought by American consumers at a far lower price that these goods could be purchased through other outlets. The battle between the U.S. and Chinese economies and intentions of global influence will only grow in importance.
The Obama legacy: This is a kind of catch-all category recognizing that the Obama administration seemed friendlier to big tech than the Trump administration. The question raised by the Journal was whether or not Biden will again embrace some of the Obama efforts. For example, will rural broadband be raised in importance? How will big tech companies be treated – as too big and limiting innovation or as important industries to leave alone?