Regulation Archives - Assert Digital Ventures

A Solution to Big Tech Monopolies: Open Source them

November 23, 2020November 23, 2020
by Andy

There’s been much discussion around the big tech platforms and whether they constitute monopolies that should be broken up. With the US government now scrutinizing this (and have even launched a case against Google) as well as EU regulators taking a critical stance, I thought we should consider how this might come about. In my 25+ years in tech, I’ve worked with, on and against pretty much all the big four (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) as well as studied their practices in detail for my teaching at NYU Stern.

First, I’m not a lawyer but do my best to study those arguments. Most conclude that US antitrust law is not well equipped to address this issue. Antitrust precedent has mostly been based on harm to consumers due to inflated prices from lack of viable competition. Most tech companies give away a huge amount of value in their platform offerings for free (e.g. Google search). Thus, Google can, and has, made that argument. The recent case filed by the US Attorney General made other arguments for anti-competitive behavior but appears to be treading in unprecedented grounds to avoid this element of antitrust law.

The remedy offered by some is to simply break up the tech firms. Breaking up any company at this scale is complex but that is even more so with tech. The reason big tech has been so acquisitive and reaching further into consumers lives is because properties with large, locked-in user bases can be leverage their platform gaining tech network effects. Their products are technically intertwined at multiple levels but, most importantly, with identity. Identity ownership is a powerful tool and most new startups eschew their own proprietary login to use one or more of “login with Google, Facebook, etc”. For the startup, this lowers friction for new user sign-up and security management. For the big tech firms, it deepens their entrenchment at the center of the tech universe.

Besides the complexity, breakup is not necessarily the best remedy to actually drive the outcome sought: more competition in the key tech arenas to drive vs. stifle innovation. Take Facebook for example. The most cited breakup plan is to separate Facebook the social network and Messenger app from WhatsApp and Instagram. While that would lessen Facebook proper’s reach, each of those companies would still be dominant in their lane of digital social. While there is some overlap across those properties, each of them is distinct and doesn’t really compete with one another on core value proposition and thus wouldn’t suddenly create a multi-horse race.

There is some precedent around tech monopolies and lock-in from the 1990s US DOJ case vs. Microsoft and browser bundling. In that case, MS was giving away a valuable tool, the browser, with their dominant OS locking out other browsers which people had to install (and the third party browsers did not have lower level OS API access). It took many years, but MS was finally forced to unbundle the browser and offer alternatives. Ironically, by the time the case was settled nearly a decade after it started, a startup named Google had already created a viable competitor in Chrome which was rapidly taking share from MS IE. It was simply a better product.

Interestingly, Google Chrome is quasi-open source. Its core was and continues to primarily be developed by Google. As sort of a good will (or good legal strategy post-MS remedy), Google open sourced the code base. This allowed for external developers to understand the workings and improve it…with Google’s blessing. This has mostly benefited Google in keeping the broader community invested in improving Chrome. Few have challenged its supremacy be it open source (Firefox) or commercial (MS IE). And in one of the great turns of irony, Microsoft announced a few years back that their new browser, Edge, would be based on Chromium, the open source Chrome core. At the end of the day, Google maintains some level of control, but the issue of commercial lock-in and platform dominance has largely subsided in the browser arena due to Google’s wise move to open source it. And it was a wise business move as Google, at the time, did not make operating systems. Instead of trying to compete with MS in that arena, it created an open layer on top of Windows which correlated with the explosion of the consumer internet. Microsoft was bogged down from innovating in IE due to the DOJ lawsuit and trying to use it as a wedge to maintain their Windows + Office francise.

This case is instructive for my recommendation on how to deal with the current big platform monopolies we have today. They are the gatekeepers for most consumer commercial internet ventures. If you build a new app, you need to get it approved and pay Apple (App Store) and Google (Play Store). If you want to get traffic to your new website, you need to pay Google (Adsense) and optimize for their search engine (SEO). Alternately, if you want to reach that audience in social you operate on Facebook’s platform. Current estimates are that google has 50%+ of digital ad spend with Facebook at over 25%. That’s concentration of audience. And if you have a product you want to sell, you can build your own .com and deal with the aforementioned digital ad duopoly or sell under Amazon’s ever shifting and arcane platform rules which represents over 50% of e-commerce spend in the US. I should know. I operate several small digital businesses that depend on most of these platforms. You simply hope not to offend your king.

How do we change this? Let’s start with Google as its the one I’ve thought most about and is currently the most advanced from an antitrust standpoint. The solution is to open source its search and ad placement algorithms. The algorithms are a tightly held secret and rumor has it that even search/ad engineers at Google don’t know all the component parts so as not to walk out the door with it (kind of like the Coke formula). Knowledge of this would give advantages to those who want to rank and advertise so its understandable why its closely guarded IP.

By making these key algorithms open source, you level the playing field for access kind of like what Google did with Chrome 20 years ago. Google could remain a shepherd of them like it does Chromium, however, others would be able to implement it and thus have Google search-like results without the requisite commercial relationship (see Apple-Google search payments). First, this increases the algorithm’s impact and refinement (if you can imagine that) but lessens Google’s commercial influence and sole decision making which has, at times, biased toward their other properties (or whomever is paying them the most).

Second, the APIs by which ads are placed against that search algorithm would also be open source and available to other platforms. Currently, Google is the only entity able to place ads against its algorithm. They are the gatekeeper and extract a fee. By opening that up, others can offer placement services and compete for ad space. There is already a large ecosystem of DSPs and other agencies who do this and would be happy to move on step lower in the stack. However, today, they all have to get Google’s blessing (and pay their fee) to place an ad. Moving this to open source ultimately reduces the “cost” to consumers as the Google fee is removed (NOTE: some small fee would have to apply for running the infrastructure but multiple infrastructures could be run).

That said, one major area here that has to be dealt with is setting the rules of the road including content moderation for advertising. Unfortunately, there are these grey and black hat actors out there who try to use this access for nefarious purposes. The good news is that the open source community already has practices in place to deal with this at the code level. Since everything is out in the open and multiple, independent parties, must agree to accept contributions, this dissuades and monitors for insertion of bad things at the technical level. However, how do we do that at the content level? My proposal is to follow the open source model and leverage the existing ad rule setters like the IAB to guard this. A lot more thought needs to go into the details than I will cover here, but there is structure in place. Content moderation in advertising is easier than for consumer posts on social networks since you tend to be dealing with entities vs. anonymous consumers. Yet, I’ve offered one model for that. A foundation, similar to those that guard Linux, could be created for this and even be quasi-governmental.

Google’s argument against this will be about fairness given the billions in R&D they put toward developing this. Well, that’s really what happens in antitrust as they’ve made many times more those billions in the fees they’ve extracted over the years. Ironically, they are the innovator here who created the model here with Chromium (and, to a degree, Android) so they already know how to operate a thriving commercial entity in this manner. Plus, there are many other instances of successful businesses being built around open source (see: RedHat for one).

Besides browsers, there are already other examples of the open source model being a natural regulator against tech platform dominance:

Linux in server operating systems
Email in being distributed with a well-defined open, standard API
W3C for web standards (http, etc)
Android in mobile operating systems

And several other smaller ones.

Biden administration, I’m available if you’d like to talk further 😉 Let’s combine legal minds with unbiased tech operators to get to the best outcomes.

NOTE: This is just scraping at the surface of the complexity but we need a frame of thinking to deal with that complexity. I’ll be thinking about how this approach applies to the rest of the big 4 and a potential macro framework that the US gov’t and others should create to use this going forward for future posts.

The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We…

January 18, 2020January 23, 2020
by Andy

Expose on Clearview AI who has built a ~30bn (and growing) image database scraping public sources like social media — without your knowledge or permission. Its used currently, as far as we’re told, solely for law enforcement. However, this puts the pressure on the privacy matters that have been gaining voice as computer vision neural nets go mainstream and improve over 95% accuracy.

While this is new ground technically, its not in the sense of a new technique which can greatly help society (solve crimes) can also be misused (including by those entrusted to use them properly). Just one example from some smart NYT reporting:

While the company was dodging me, it was also monitoring me. At my request, a number of police officers had run my photo through the Clearview app. They soon received phone calls from company representatives asking if they were talking to the media — a sign that Clearview has the ability and, in this case, the appetite to monitor whom law enforcement is searching for.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html

We don’t have privacy now and its regularly being eroded by cameras, online data, proprietary behavioral databases (e.g. Equifax).

“I’ve come to the conclusion that because information constantly increases, there’s never going to be privacy,” Mr. Scalzo said. “Laws have to determine what’s legal, but you can’t ban technology. Sure, that might lead to a dystopian future or something, but you can’t ban it.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html

Banning doesn’t work and won’t here especially how technology easily spans borders where the legal standard varies.

“It’s creepy what they’re doing, but there will be many more of these companies. There is no monopoly on math,” said Al Gidari, a privacy professor at Stanford Law School. “Absent a very strong federal privacy law, we’re all screwed.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html

As I’ve discussed before, this will not be solved by policy or technology solely. Its those two plus real criminal penalties for the violators and simple controls everyone can use like in a decentralized social network.

Watch this space.

Prime Power: How Amazon Squeezes the Businesses Behind Its…

December 20, 2019December 20, 2019
by Andy

This article sadly articulates the reality of how Amazon treats sellers. I could provide anecdotes point by point but the article and its stories speak for itself. The revelation that Bezos sees the marketplace as his cash cow for expensive side projects makes sense and shows how he has lost his vision.

The only one I’ll mention is that I don’t know of anyone selling on Amazon who only has them take 27 points of margin. Try more like 38. And consumers should know there is no way Amazon is the lowest price as sellers are forced to pass these costs on. They need to be regulated as there is no avoiding them nor control any seller has which is the definition of monopoly power.

But to make it all work, Amazon runs a machine that squeezes ever more money out of the hundreds of thousands of companies, from tiny start-ups to giant brands, that put the everything into Amazon’s Everything Store.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/technology/amazon-sellers.html

F.T.C. Is Said to Consider an Injunction Against Facebook

December 13, 2019
by Andy

This is a big deal (albeit would be tied up in court for awhile). Getting ahead of the already planned integration of messaging across Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram so its not a nightmare later (and it would be).

The Federal Trade Commission is considering seeking a preliminary injunction against Facebook to prevent the social network from integrating several of its messaging services, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. The agency has discussed how the Silicon Valley company is stitching together the technical infrastructure underlying WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential. The F.T.C. is weighing whether such an integration would make it harder to potentially break up Facebook, they said, especially if the agency determines that the company’s acquisitions of some of those apps reduced competition in social networking. The agency has not made a final decision about what to do, the people said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/technology/ftc-facebook-injunction.html

How can we balance restricting harmful/fake content with privacy?

December 9, 2019December 9, 2019
by Andy

There have been two major issues in tech over the past couple of years which are highly related yet I haven’t seen much talk about their interplay: how to rid (primarily social media) from harmful/fake content and maintain people’s privacy. The former coming to prominence after the 2016 election “influence” campaigns and subsequent revelations around Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and others trying to deal with fake accounts.

Allowing users to mask their identities has been a hallmark of social networks and user generated content (UGC) sites since their formation. After some egregious cases of harmful and hateful content arising early on, each made tacit attempts to ensure identities. Bots and incentivitized users easily worked around them. Few — notably Airbnb after some high profile problems — went to a REAL ID system. This requires users to present multiple forms of government issued ID to establish their identity. REAL ID isn’t perfect, but it certainly reduces the number of fake/anonymous accounts.

On the other side, there has been concern around user privacy and the use of personally identifiable information (PII) that these sites collect. Once again, Facebook unfortunately took the lead here in allowing data to be used in malicious ways demonstrating how dangerous companies controlling PII can be. Since then, there have been many voices, including governmental, calling for significant privacy constraints and for users to “own” their data and identities.

These types of controls are easier said than done. However, it demonstrates that people are not comfortable with big tech (and others for that matter) having this information and, either through malicious or incompetent behavior, may misuse it. This, unfortunately, is in direct conflict with the desire to have more transparency and identity on social media to attempt to limit harmful/fake content so as to better police it. What to do?

My proposal is for a multi-layered system which addresses both issue:

Any internet property which allows users to post content (e.g. social networks and UGC sites) must verify their identity using a system like REAL ID.
The company may only verify the identification documents but may not store any PII information associated with them. They must keep their own internal ID for each users which has no way of being reverse engineered into PII.
Each company must ask (and give access to change at any time) users what information about them that they’re allowed to store. This includes what public persona/name/nickname the user wants displayed along with their content.
The government will establish a system for REAL ID based on the issuing entity. When an ID verification request is sent to the government API, valid requests will have a unique set of characters returned to the requesting company (we’ll call this encrypted ID) which they MUST store with the company’s internal unique ID for that user. The government entity must keep storage of all encrypted IDs and their association with REAL IDs. Each requesting company must get a different encrypted ID but a consistent one for the same user on subsequent requests.
If there is suspicion of a crime, a law enforcement entity with a subpoena can request the encrypted ID associated with any account. That can then be used to reveal the REAL ID already stored in the government database.
Each REAL ID API call by companies will incur a small fee so as to pay for scalable and secure data systems that the government must maintain.

This system isn’t perfect but will a) curb bad behavior online with the knowledge that if you cross a line, you could get a visit from law enforcement b) greatly restrict bots and malicious actors from gaining accounts c) support a government program to protect IDs but associate them with real identities they already issue and protect d) do not allow companies to hold PII which could be used maliciously or hacked.

Are there people who would lose their important anonymity under this plan? You don’t have to keep any PII with the company, only the government (and you do this today)?

What about authoritarian governments and how they could abuse this? Yes, that’s a concern but is also a larger issue. In any case, this does not address private messaging apps and other types of sites, only public content ones.

Thoughts?

The Rising Threat of Digital Nationalism

November 15, 2019
by Andy

The quandary over what happens to the public network as national laws (and varying degrees of liberalism) are applied be it in the name or due to crisis is challenging. I don’t see how you can get countries to agree to a set of liberal ideals that large chunks of news, discourse and commerce have gone there. They won’t give so easily.

But things have been changing recently. Nicholas Negroponte, a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab, once said that national law had no place in cyberlaw. That view seems increasingly anachronistic. Across the world, nation-states have been responding to a series of crises on the internet (some real, some overstated) by asserting their authority and claiming various forms of digital sovereignty. A network that once seemed to effortlessly defy regulation is being relentlessly, and often ruthlessly, domesticated.
[…]

It turns out that the way to deal with offline and online nationalism may be quite similar: Restore a sense of inclusiveness and fair play, flatten some of the sharpest inequalities and rediscover and stress the principles that made the network so inspiring (and radically creative) in the first place. As it happens, there is a tool kit, both existing and emerging, to do some of this.

Mr. Verhulst, from the GovLab at NYU, argues that laws and principles from a previous era should be updated for the 21st century, by applying telecom universal service obligations to broadband, for example, and diversity and equal-time rules (sometimes applied to radio and television) to large news and social-media networks. “It’s not like we don’t know how to go about this,” he says. “We just have to be more creative and think of what we can learn from models that were used in the past.” Competition law is another area that has received a lot of attention, specifically the need to update its provisions to take account of the (nominally) free business models practiced by many digital companies.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rising-threat-of-digital-nationalism-11572620577

ECONOMISTS ON THE RUN

October 26, 2019
by Andy

Good article on the scourge of 90s globalization economic theory as championed by Paul Krugman which has now fallen out of favor as reality has struck. I think the more interesting point here — other than pointing out not only how wrong Krugman was but how anyone who challenged him at the time was belittled as intellectually inferior — is not about how this could have adversely affected the 2016 election, but how complete focus on quantitative measures can lead one astray.

Its not hard to see, as many of those questioning globalization economic policy at the time were, how qualitatively looking at how a plant closing in a community can suddenly have starkly different outcomes for the workers and leaders of a company. Do that 1000s of times over and you have a major social problem and wealth gap that we now find ourselves in.

As the economists did see in their models, in the long term, this largely balances out. We’re seeing a bit of this in how outsourcing low-end service jobs to India used to be 1/10th the cost. Its now more like 1/2 the cost and challenges with quality control, productivity and managing a global workforce bring in to question the real savings.

Alternatively, a high wage country like Germany maintains economic balance keeping manufacturing domestic with highly trained and skilled workers that have a production efficiency rate unmatched globally.

I’m not advocating a particular political view here. I believe in technology advancement for human progress understanding the qualitative impact as well as the quantitative we’ve become so good at. However, that rarely considers those left on the sidelines who do not have the skills to compete. Protectionism via unions isn’t the answer. Training is. If we enact a policy that loosens trade barriers, invent an automation technology that displaces jobs or open the trade door allowing low wage economies to take low wage jobs, we must have commensurate training to bring the most exposed workers into the new economy. There has never been a significant technological revolution (including the industrial revolution) which has solely displaced jobs. Those jobs just migrated to a new skill base. As Robert Reich has always advocated, government policy and funding should be directed toward this.

Paul Krugman has never suffered fools gladly. The Nobel Prize-winning economist rose to international fame—and a coveted space on the New York Times op-ed page—by lacerating his intellectual opponents in the most withering way. In a series of books and articles beginning in the 1990s, Krugman branded just about everybody who questioned the rapid pace of globalization a fool who didn’t understand economics very well. “Silly” was a word Krugman used a lot to describe pundits who raised fears of economic competition from other nations, especially China. Don’t worry about it, he said: Free trade will have only minor impact on your prosperity.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/22/economists-globalization-trade-paul-krugman-china/

Why Private Equity Should Not Exist

September 26, 2019
by Andy

Interesting read on the history of PE (from 70s theory and legal changes to Regan de-regulation and tax law changes to LBOs) and what can be done to reign in the negative parts of their activities.

I’m troubled by what modern PE has become. Here’s to a return to actually investing (buying out) companies to fuel them. Let’s return to investor = owner.

What critics of PE are proposing is a profound restructuring of the philosophy of the American political economy, a return to excellence in production as the goal instead of excellence in manipulation. If critics succeeds, those who make and create will have their bargaining power increase radically, which will mean wage growth across the bottom and middle tier. Swaths of elite powerful people will lose power. It’ll be really jarring, because we aren’t used to a producer-focused economic order anymore. But it is what we need to do.
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/why-private-equity-should-not-exist

Do Americans want to break up companies like Amazon…

September 24, 2019April 26, 2022
by Andy

I was a bit surprised by this. I thought this argument was mostly the domain of the tech and political elite and that most people just liked cheap/free/fast services. If this sentiment has truly trickled to a broader swath of the electorate along with those in both parties calling for it, the tech companies are going to face a 2020 election season filled with calls to break them up. Can they weather the storm? If it does gain substantive traction (vs. just political bluster) I think there’s a long legal battle which I’m not sure the US government has great footing given how the law is written and precedent of a focus on monopolies harming consumers through price inflation. New laws may have to be passed. Facebook is in the lead position with the most scrutiny and easiest divestiture path (unwind the Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions). Google is on deck. Will be interesting to see how politically savvy they become.

How Each Big Tech Company May Be Targeted by…

September 15, 2019
by Andy

Of these four:

Amazon: Favoring its own products?
Apple: The power of the App Store
Facebook: Consolidation of social media
Google: What appears in search results

Google really presents the biggest concern. For better or worse, search is still the gateway to much of the monetization of the internet. Yes, Amazon exploits is master view of its marketplace to sell their own products. However, Amazon branded products are still a tiny % of the overall market and often are the generic to other sellers more specialized products. Plus, no one has proven that Amazon is favoring their own.

The Apple AppStore is powerful and there have been abuses (takedowns, not allowing products to compete with Apple’s) but, worldwide, Apple is still a small % of overall app sales.

Facebook is more compelling. However, there are alternative social media (its mostly but not exclusively winner take all). And there is likely a simpler fix to right this by unwinding the Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions. Imagine Facebook proper (and Messenger) having to compete there?

Google owns, controls and can shift whole businesses and industries with an algorithm change (see what the Medic algorithm update did to the natural health and wellness space). Even if you buy their “don’t be evil” mantra, they simply have too much power and depend far too much on algorithms to make decisions. Talk to any advertiser who’s received an ad takedown from one of Google’s algos. You contact support who can’t tell you why your ad was taken down and they spend their time trying to help you trick the algo to get your ad back up. There’s a problem here.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have been the envy of corporate America, admired for their size, influence and remarkable growth.
Now that success is attracting a different kind of spotlight. In Washington, Brussels and beyond, regulators and lawmakers are investigating whether the four technology companies have used their size and wealth to quash competition and expand their dominance.
The four firms are lumped together so often that they have become known as Big Tech. Their business models differ, as do the antitrust arguments against them. But those grievances have one thing in common: fear that too much power is in the hands of too few companies.
The attorney general of New York, Letitia James, said Friday that the attorneys general in eight states — she and three other Democrats, plus four Republicans — and the District of Columbia had begun an antitrust investigation of Facebook.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/technology/antitrust-amazon-apple-facebook-google.html

There Is No Tech Backlash

September 15, 2019
by Andy

This reminds me a bit of the adage “90% of people talk about privacy but only 10% do anything about it.” Maybe this is just emblematic of the depth of dependency (and its dependency in most cases, not addiction) on tech. The deepest I see is people now having an ability to avoid social situations around them by going to their device or using Facebook to connect when they feel they can’t connect to those around them. Deeply entrenched habits are not easily displaced (and remember that you never really lose a habit, it can only be replaced by something else).

It’s fun, and increasingly fashionable, to complain about technology. Our own devices distract us, others’ devices spy on us, social media companies poison public discourse, new wired objects violate our privacy, and all of this contributes to a general sense of runaway change careening beyond our control. No wonder there’s a tech backlash.
But, really, is there?
There certainly has been talk of a backlash, for a couple of years now. Politicians have discussed regulating big tech companies more tightly. Fines have been issued, breakups called for. A tech press once dedicated almost exclusively to gadget lust and organizing conferences that trot out tech lords for the rest of us to worship has taken on a more critical tone; a drumbeat of exposés reveal ethically and legally dubious corporate behavior. Novels and movies paint a skeptical or even dystopian picture of where tech is taking us. We all know people who have theatrically quit this or that social media service, or announced digital sabbaticals. And, of course, everybody kvetches, all the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/opinion/tech-backlash.html

How Elizabeth Warren Came Up with a Plan to…

August 20, 2019
by Andy

The big tech platforms (GAFA, yes, I’m including you too Apple) do have too much power and control. I like the concept of separating the platform marketplace (the “utility” in Warren’s parlance) from participation therein. That particular speaks to Amazon but less clear in the Google, Facebook and Apple cases. That’s why there has to be concern about the nuance and understanding the underlying complexities (including some technical ones like security and data privacy governance). Having people without tech and tech business knowledge drive this is not great. Regulation is a blunt instrument.

The Amazon example has since become a recurring feature of Warren’s campaign speeches. She notes that, like most everyone else, she uses Amazon. At a town hall in April, Warren recalled that the last thing she’d purchased on the site was a new mailbox for her house. Still, her plan to break up Big Tech reflects a growing awareness of the drawbacks of decades of relaxed antitrust enforcement, even if certain activities such as shopping for housewares has become easier for consumers.
https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-elizabeth-warren-came-up-with-a-plan-to-break-up-big-tech

The Phony Patriots of Silicon Valley

August 18, 2019August 18, 2019
by Andy

Good summation:

Meredith Whittaker, a co-founder of the AI Now Institute at New York University and a former Google employee, characterized the tech industry’s scaremongering about China as a tactical move meant to deflect criticism. “It’s a really convenient narrative,” Ms. Whittaker said. “It evokes nationalism and a red scare trope that has worked in the past. And it implies that regulation, accountability and taking a pause to consider ethics would be counter to ‘winning.’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/technology/the-phony-patriots-of-silicon-valley.html

Google Nest removes ability to turn off indicator light…

August 18, 2019August 18, 2019
by Andy

This is a notable overstep by Google. Independent of how you feel on the issue, they no longer own the devices and should not be able to manipulate user features unless there’s a legal or liability change for THEM. I suspect the latter is at issue here and they’re hiding behind “privacy”.

This is what our new world of connected devices entails. Tesla recently hinted at taking away some autopilot features for those who don’t buy a higher level of software. Its not as clean as before connected devices. However, taking power from owners is not a good step. Hopefully, there is consumer pressure and/or legal action.

Proposed US law would ban infinite scroll, autoplaying video

August 18, 2019August 18, 2019
by Andy

By banning features (even annoying ones like autoplay) legally we’re crossing into a new era. Remember, regulation is a blunt instrument. How would they even enforce this? INTERNET FORCE!

Nobody likes auto-playing video or sites that keep scrolling away infinitely when you’re just trying to reach the bottom of the page. But you probably don’t hate either “feature” as much as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who introduced a bill today to ban these and other “exploitative” practices.

While the ban on infinite scroll is the most amusing part, the proposed SMART Act (PDF), a backronym for the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act, seeks to ban online companies from using a wide array of tactics that “exploit human psychology or brain physiology” to reduce user choice.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/proposed-us-law-would-ban-infinite-scroll-autoplaying-video/