THE PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDENS 5 TECHNICAL PRIORITIES
President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team describes his inspirational philosophy as “building better.” This is in favor of both the Trump administration’s tendency to push back the power of federal agencies and how Biden’s preference for large New Deal-style stimuli is built.

But when complete hostility to Big Tech is a dual issue, what does it mean for the US tech industry and its future regulators? These are five areas that can affect almost all Americans, prioritizing technical topics identified by the upcoming government and its advisors.

Chairman-elect Joe Biden’s Five Technical Priorities

Section 230: Small Law, Long Reach

Section 230 of the Communications Goodwill Act of 1996 is the legal principle that enables the Internet today-Facebook, Twitter, TikTok to YouTube, Discord, cramps. This protects the company from liability for what users do online.

This made sense when online services were just a tool for creating virtual billboards and mailing lists, but many of today’s platforms have powerful artificial intelligence that controls what is displayed in people’s feeds. Evolving with algorithms. Critics on both sides of the political situation say that if a company controls what people see, they must take responsibility for what people see-and invisible.

President Trump has threatened to reject recent defense spending bills unless there is a provision to abandon Section 230. Last December, Biden said Section 230 “should be abolished immediately.”

That doesn’t mean they agree. Jessica Melugin, director of the Technology and Innovation Center at the Libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, believes Republicans will provide a cover for social media companies to censor political speech, while Republicans have changed Section 230. He says he wants social media companies to explain the spread. Of the wrong information. (My colleague gave a bright explanation about this.)

Despite all the heated rhetoric about eliminating Section 230, Congress does not seem to be willing to pass a law that changes it, Melugin says. If that happens, there will be a compromise limiting the scope of protection in Section 230, as recently proposed by a trio of Republican senators.

Alex Engler, a Fellow at the Brookings Institute, who describes himself as fair, is labeled Centrist or Moderate, but is studying the impact of technology on governance. He says the Biden administration may find double support for rules that slow the spread of certain content on social media and add warnings to those that spread rapidly-often they aren’t true. Indicates. Twitter attempted such a measure in October to delay election-related misinformation.

President Trump has threatened to reject recent defense spending bills unless there is a provision to abandon Section 230. Last December, Biden said Section 230 “should be abolished immediately.”

That doesn’t mean they agree. Jessica Melugin, director of the Technology and Innovation Center at the Libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, believes Republicans will provide a cover for social media companies to censor political speech, while Republicans have changed Section 230. He says he wants social media companies to explain the spread. Of the wrong information. (My colleague gave a bright explanation about this.)

Despite all the heated rhetoric about eliminating Section 230, Congress does not seem to be willing to pass a law that changes it, Melugin says. If that happens, there will be a compromise limiting the scope of protection in Section 230, as recently proposed by a trio of Republican senators.

Alex Engler, a Fellow at the Brookings Institute, who describes himself as fair, is labeled Centrist or Moderate, but is studying the impact of technology on governance. He says the Biden administration may find double support for rules that slow the spread of certain content on social media and add warnings to those that spread rapidly-often they aren’t true. Indicates. Twitter attempted such a measure in October to delay election-related misinformation.

The Federal Communications Commission has been asked by the Trump administration to reinterpret Section 230, but other Brookings scientists believe that changes to the legal system must come from Congress, not the FCC. Melugin agrees.

Net Neutrality: Internet Battle Internet

Competition Net Neutrality (the principle that all data must be treated equally in terms of speed of delivery over the physical infrastructure) is by Internet pioneers, activists, and BigTech. It has long been considered sacred. Companies such as Google and Facebook claim that it is essential to promote innovation and stay competitive. Needless to say, many US ISPs are actually local monopolies and may endorse their own services while charging more for competing services.

For example, AT & T, which provides the Internet to millions of homes in the United States, can offer HBO Max services at a discounted rate, but competitors can charge Netflix and Disney + to reach the same home. AT & T Mobile has already exempted HBO Max, a process called Zero Review, from customer data restrictions.

In 2017, the Republican-controlled FCC, under retiring Chairman Ajit Pai, argued that it overturned the Obama-era net neutrality rules, reducing consumer choice and, in some cases, higher prices. FCC critics, led by Mr. Pai, claim that his actions have accomplished the exact opposite of what he intended.

President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team describes his inspirational philosophy as “building better.” This is in favor of both the Trump administration’s tendency to push back the power of federal agencies and how Biden’s preference for large New Deal-style stimuli is built.

But when complete hostility to Big Tech is a dual issue, what does it mean for the US tech industry and its future regulators? These are five areas that can affect almost all Americans, prioritizing technical topics identified by the upcoming government and its advisors.

Chairman-elect Joe Biden’s Five Technical Priorities

Section 230: Small Law, Long Reach

Section 230 of the Communications Goodwill Act of 1996 is the legal principle that enables the Internet today-Facebook, Twitter, TikTok to YouTube, Discord, cramps. This protects the company from liability for what users do online. . ..

This made sense when online services were just a tool for creating virtual billboards and mailing lists, but many of today’s platforms have powerful artificial intelligence that controls what is displayed in people’s feeds. Evolving with algorithms. Critics on both sides of the political situation say that if a company controls what people see, they must take responsibility for what people see-and invisible.

President Trump has threatened to reject recent defense spending bills unless there is a provision to abandon Section 230. Last December, Biden said Section 230 “should be abolished immediately.”

That doesn’t mean they agree. Jessica Melugin, director of the Technology and Innovation Center at the Libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, believes Republicans will provide a cover for social media companies to censor political speech, while Republicans have changed Section 230. He says he wants social media companies to explain the spread. Of the wrong information. (My colleague gave a bright explanation about this.)

Despite all the heated rhetoric about eliminating Section 230, Congress does not seem to be willing to pass a law that changes it, Melugin says. If that happens, there will be a compromise limiting the scope of protection in Section 230, as recently proposed by a trio of Republican senators.

Alex Engler, a Fellow at the Brookings Institute, who describes himself as fair, is labeled Centrist or Moderate, but is studying the impact of technology on governance. He says the Biden administration may find double support for rules that slow the spread of certain content on social media and add warnings to those that spread rapidly-often they aren’t true. Indicates. Twitter attempted such a measure in October to delay election-related misinformation.

President Trump has threatened to reject recent defense spending bills unless there is a provision to abandon Section 230. Last December, Biden said Section 230 “should be abolished immediately.”

That doesn’t mean they agree. Jessica Melugin, director of the Technology and Innovation Center at the Libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, believes Republicans will provide a cover for social media companies to censor political speech, while Republicans have changed Section 230. Said that social media companies want to explain spreads. Of the wrong information. (My colleague provided an enlightening explanation for this.)
['Be Ute Un Gko Song B']
['Biden', 'Mental Health', 'Technology', 'News']