So, Mark Zuckerberg now wants Congress to regulate his company and the internet. And he wants to dictate the terms for how it can best be accomplished in a manner that furthers his self-interests.
Wow.
Three years ago, lawmakers might have taken him seriously.
Today, he is late to the table and lacks credibility to move the needle in Congress, assuming that’s even possible given the deep divisions in Washington.
The Facebook founder and CEO has penned an op-ed, reprinted here today, calling on government to take “a more active role” regulating harmful content, and ensuring election integrity, privacy and data portability.
It’s the latest indication of just how far the tech industry has fallen in the last three years, in large part because its multi-billion-dollar companies too often put profits ahead of long-term consumer trust.
David Packard must be spinning in his grave.
The industry desperately needs someone with integrity and clout to work with Congress on needed regulations. Tech titans should be embarrassed that the United States remains the only major developed nation without fundamental online user protections.
Zuckerberg is the last CEO who should be leading the effort. He and his company bear large responsibility for tech’s fall from grace. It seems unimaginable today that just two years ago Zuckerberg was touring Iowa amid speculation that he would make a serious 2020 presidential run.
This is the man who continues to make his fortune at the expense of Facebook users’ basic privacy. And who naively sat by while fake news widely distributed on Facebook helped elect Donald Trump in 2016.
“Personally I think the idea that fake news on Facebook … influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea,” Zuckerberg said just three days after the election.
Then came the revelation that Facebook allowed the personal information of up to 87 million users to fall into the hands of Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm linked to Trump, prior to the 2016 election. That was followed by Facebook’s stunning admission that it enabled the spread of fake news about Rohingya Muslims, fueling their slaughter in Myanmar.
He now has good reason to fear that Congress will try to rein in the industry’s abuses. So, rather than fight as he has previously, he now seems to be trying to absolve his company of oversight responsibilities.
His proposal, in his op-ed, for government to determine what constitutes “free speech” and what is “harmful” shifts the burden from Facebook to lawmakers. The same holds true for what rules should apply for political advertising on the internet.
As for privacy, Facebook and other social media companies have fought regulation for years, but now that the handwriting is on the wall, Zuckerberg is changing his tune. California’s online privacy law will take effect in 2020, and other states are moving to follow its lead.
Finally, Zuckerberg’s call for regulation guaranteeing the right of consumers to move their data from one service to another could have the effect of making it more difficult to break up his stranglehold on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Zuckerberg has correctly identified key areas that demand fixes. But his history makes him the wrong person to now tell Congress how the internet should be regulated.
