What you say sounds good, and this isn’t rhetorical, but who gets to decide what constitutes “harmful” then? Isn’t that still the same problem that could be weaponized against free speech?
Yeah, we need to be careful about distinguishing policy objectives from policy language.
“Hold megacorps responsible for harmful algorithms” is a good policy objective.
How we hold them responsible is an open question. Legal recourse is just one option. And it’s an option that risks collateral damage.
But why are they able to profit from harmful products in the first place? Lack of meaningful competition.
It really all comes back to the enshittification thesis. Unless we force these firms to open themselves up to competition, they have no reason to stop abusing their customers.
“We’ll get sued” gives them a reason. “They’ll switch to a competitor’s service” also gives them a reason, and one they’re more likely to respect — if they see it as a real possibility.
What you say sounds good, and this isn’t rhetorical, but who gets to decide what constitutes “harmful” then? Isn’t that still the same problem that could be weaponized against free speech?
Yeah, we need to be careful about distinguishing policy objectives from policy language.
“Hold megacorps responsible for harmful algorithms” is a good policy objective.
How we hold them responsible is an open question. Legal recourse is just one option. And it’s an option that risks collateral damage.
But why are they able to profit from harmful products in the first place? Lack of meaningful competition.
It really all comes back to the enshittification thesis. Unless we force these firms to open themselves up to competition, they have no reason to stop abusing their customers.
“We’ll get sued” gives them a reason. “They’ll switch to a competitor’s service” also gives them a reason, and one they’re more likely to respect — if they see it as a real possibility.