Skip to main content

tv   After Words Rep. Ro Khanna Dignity in a Digital Age - Making Tech Work...  CSPAN  April 11, 2022 3:36pm-4:32pm EDT

3:36 pm
>> complete access to what's happening in washington wherever you are with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress , white house events, the courts, campaigns and more. plus the analysis of the world of politics with our informativepodcasts . c-span now is available atthe apple store and google play . your friend proceed to washington anytime, anywhere. >> thank you for joining us to talk about your book, dignity in a digital age. i have to say i admire the work you put into your book. it would have been i think they're easy to just put together the usual political vagueness about how we should all live in peace and harmony
3:37 pm
but you can target your own positions in a really interesting way. you fax check your result of the job-training programs and take positions on things like the right to repair that likely don't make you friends in your district with the giant apple. it's a great book in respect. and maybe think about what was your general philosophy writing this? we share a bit of history, we both work at the university of chicago. few ew up in palo alto a miles away and those are both very libertarian free et marketplaces. you have a strange that your book. you do believe in free enterprise and innovation advocate for a lot of boss government intervention. in mergers, privacy protection, job creation and i would love to hear from you your overarching governing philosophy and how you square it with the sometimes libertarian views of your district . . >> i appreciate the time you took to read the actual book
3:38 pm
which is not always the case. i would say two things. one on the book itself. my theme was how do we have more democratic accountability for technology ?ou that technology both in terms of the impact on the economy ms and in terms of the impact on the public sphere has been disconnected in my view democratic accountability it's led to a concentration of economic opportunity on the economic side and it's led to an insular decision-making on the public's year side and the pieces of the pieces of the rmbook is how do we democratize that? in terms of a philosophy i remind leaders that they started out on third base. it was barbara who came up with the internet. a lot of gps was developed at darpa. you had nsf funded a lot of
3:39 pm
the connectivity so i admire the innovation of a lot of the silicon valley leaders but i don't think they should forget the government spending and government investments that went into it m and government certainly has a role to make sure people have equal access to participating in that market. as i often say you may have a competition on a football field but everyone has to have helmets and a uniform and everyone is trying to do that and not everyone in our country has the fundamental equipment to succeed in the market economy. >> i'm interested to know what you hear from your tech leaders when you remind them of that. it's been my experience they don't always like to be reminded of the government origins of their most powerful ttechnology. >> some of the ones were more thoughtful. i get it. what offends in my view the
3:40 pm
many people about technology is the bravado. the utopianism and arrogance. i don't think anyone would default tech platforms if they said we've created these platforms and we didn't really anticipate all of the negative harms. but that wasn't their approach. they said we've ancreated these programs that were going to have peace and mutual understanding and part of me thought it was that easy why would we need political philosophy ? just put off a platform where ndeveryone talks and that's going to have the quality and dialogue, then you would need 200 years, thousands of years of political thinking . ithink the same is true about the point of the government origins . i don't think anyone thinks tthat elon must isn't a great, talented entrepreneur or steve jobs or others but if they just acknowledge their
3:41 pm
debt, for example elon musk got loans from the treasury department for tesla and he prepaid goes fast because he didn't want the government to make a lot of money . that was all legal but you should just acknowledge that instead of saying everything i didwas because of me . >> right. it's a good lesson in humility which is rare in silicon valley. i want to talk about confrontation aof economic power which you mentioned as one of the topteams in your book . it's a thot topic in washington right now and it feels like one of the few issues of bipartisan support. in your book you layout for antitrust principles that you say could prevent tech from propping up competitors while not destroying services that consumers want. rules to prevent abuse of dominance, rules that foster
3:42 pm
the ability to deal fairly, ki the rights to limit mergers what you say you want to steer clear of overbroad measures breaking up big tech . you opposed the antitrust bill passed out of committee last year and said it was poorly drafted and now the senate has just passed a committeelegislation containing similar principles. i'm curious where you stand on the current antitrust legislation and what you want to see more of from ? >> i support largely senator klobuchar is a page and the senate version is better than the house version but let me give you the overall philosophy . i do think certain cases break up our are justified like facebook for example where they acquired instagram and what's. i think you should have an unraveling of that company. toand i think we want to have a ban on mergers that are acquiring competitors. but i don't think you want to than or be overly restrictive
3:43 pm
in all mergers as there are a lot of startups that have that as an acquisition strategy as theirexit . senator klobuchar says over $5 billion we should change the default setting. we can debate whether it's 5 billion or 1 billion, that seems tobe very reasonable . you want to make sure in my view that companies should be able to discriminate against sellers. so let's takeamazon or apple . if i or you or someone else wants to sell on there, i think they should have a duty to allow them. they should be able to discriminate against selling because they are such an important platform butwhat i do say is there has to be a balance . they don't want for example parler or some other app, they should have that ability if they show that and i argue for a balancing test. where i thought some of the
3:44 pm
house built work drafted well enough is there wasn't a balancing test. it wasn't a sense of if you are discriminating against the seller but you can show when it's a good reason like in my view onparler you should be able to do so . if you could add that balancing test i be fine with the legislation. >> you mentioned last year you were maybe going to be working to craft an alternative antitrust bill in the house . is that still something you're working on? >> i want to work on where people are at because i don't want to do some alternative e that has no momentum and doesn't get through committee so what i've said to the drafters of those bills is happy to work with them. understand where they're coming from to help bring them to a point where they can pass and i do think the senate efforts were promising. i think some of the tweaks made in the senate bill were better in terms of just balancing and we can get there with that.
3:45 pm
i kept an open mind on the legislation. >> i imagine it's tricky for youa little bit . google is one of your top campaign contributors, they're in your district. you put out a blog post that appeared to be criticizing klobuchar is erantitrust bill but did not state what they were closing claiming that congress is anti-tech and proposals would harm national security innovation, small businesses, securityand privacy . they didn't provide a lot of specifics about what legislation or proposal they were attacking but i'm curious what you make of their blanket sort of demonstration of congresses approach to tech and how you balance your staff with tstheir interests. >> they're obviously in my district and while i don't take corporate money directly from google it's fair to say that i have a lot of
3:46 pm
employees at google or people or tech leaders at google and other tech companies that supported me and i'm proud of the support of innovators in technology but i have been critical of the company in a number of places including in the book.that deal they have with apple in terms of being the default browser is in my view to exquisite and that apple should offer more choices for people in terms of what browser, what type of search engine to use. and i have criticized maps that google should offer other services on maps. so i guess there are places on data collection. the internet bill of rights, there are a lot of provisions which they may not like is having a collection of data only after your opt in consent. i guess the point is i'm not a person who reflexively says technology in silicon valley
3:47 pm
and apple and google are bad. i think they do provide significant values to society in terms of disinformation being spread out and people having access to information. in terms of communication but they need smart, well-crafted regulations and i wouldn't want to have a broadside against the senate bill weakening national security or whatever else they said. i think there has to be a specific concernwhether the legislation is awful or not , not sort of just a broadside press release. >> i imagine your internet bill of rights also isn't something they would agree with every piece of. you have i believe 10 principles, you don't have to go through them all but i would fbe interested to hear your bill of rights. it reminded me of the obama administration.
3:48 pm
they proposed a consumer privacy bill of rights. i don't know if you've ever look at it, at 17 sort of principles and focus them around what individuals should have a right to expect and yours was a little more specific around solutions like in consent . i'd be interested to hear about your thinking for more solutions versus principles and also the principles themselves that inform you. >> i think president obama your obviously well informed on the topic made a goodstart with this . and he someone i had actually consulted as well as megan s smith in addressing this and i think the difference is when i came around to doing this it was after that cambridge analytic us tscandal and just having the right to know what was happening with your data which is basically the orientation of the obama framework deemed insufficient . the challenge is that when these companies get our data and if they use that data to create intricate social profiles and then target them
3:49 pm
, that is allowing for a lot of manipulation. there is no doubt in my mind that q-anon has grown on other social media sites because of these companies basically taking data and targeting people who would be susceptible to their message. and you look at instagram and the challenges it has closed particularly for teenagers, for teenage girls in terms of depression,anxiety, self-consciousness of how they look . in somecases it's the worst of junior high now amplified on social media . so what the internet bill of rights at the core of it is to say we've got to restrict the access and use of data. that data should not be used to manipulate people agency. this means first off in consent but it also means data minimization. that people shouldn't be using data in ways that isn't necessary for the core function and jack balkan
3:50 pm
writes there should be sort of a fiduciary duty between peoplewho have this data and the well-being of consumers . i think if we can restrict the use of this data we would do a lot in restoring people's confidence that they can be free agents, free thinkers and not subject to manipulation on these platforms. >> you say in the book if you could choose one law that would improve the online experience, you would choose opt in consent for data collection .cc and anyone who's ever been greeted by the accept cookies prompt on a website knows it's pretty easy to get you to opt in if you just harassed the user enough. and you know, if you think that's a situation like the fight for seatbelts and cars you would have to say opting in is not good enough for basic safety standards . given what we know about the harms of data collection , tell me why you think opt in
3:51 pm
is a good enough standard. >> it's not sufficient but i think it's necessary and can move the needle. the reality is that you're right, the gdp in europe has stopped in consent and the tech companies figuredout how to have the right type of sizes on the website , the right type of f boxes where basically they were getting many people to consent. you need real opt in consent which means you need the ftc to be enforcing efforts to manipulate that . you need regulations to show that you have clear, simple to understand guidelines for people to opt in. that should not be something that's happening 20 times every time these boxes are popping upbut the first time or second time you're choosing a service that you can get clear guidelines on what you want and what you don't want '. and that people are being manipulated.
3:52 pm
that's not going to solve the entire problem. partly people are constructing profiles as i mentioned in the book based on other people's data, they're able to get your profile through inference. so we need more than opt in consent. we need a fiduciary responsibility but opt in consent is a good first step to help with some of the worst abuses. >> i don't know if you've seen what they do in france but athe regulators there are so strict on opt in. when you are in the west friends and you surf the web it literally says i accept, i do not and you get to say no every time and it's especially the most fun. it's kind of a videogame to keep saying no and you get to see the wholeewebsite . it would be nice if opt in could be enforced in that way. what do you think about, there's more you know, aggressive proposals out there. your colleague who represents
3:53 pm
aymy former hometown of palo alto has introduced legislation to ban surveillance advertising which would force advertisers to return to their old techniques of advertising based on content near the ad or the geography of where users are looking . some say it could be a good way to break up the dominance on the online ad market and some say it could destroy the industry. do you support her bill? >> i'm not for a totalban because i think there are certain uses of targeted advertising that are fine . for example if i'm living in fremont which is where my home and i want to have pizza , it's fine that the pizza places that are advertising to me are near fremont and not in washington dc or in chicago. and a lot of small businesses actually rely on targeted advertising. a lot of ironically smaller newspapers rely on targeted advertising because they
3:54 pm
can't pay bulk rates. so just to ban all targeted advertising strikes me as overbroad. but i do think this is where if individuals can say here are things that i don't want to be targeted for, that my data i shouldn't be used in these ways then you could come to some medium and of course if people are being targeted on categories of race or gender or religion, that is a place where i think you should have broader regulations and prohibitions. >> her bill does allow targeting in fremont geographically so it tends to do some sort of straddling of that line. but it's hard to know where that line is . we as the journalists i've been writing about facebook's discriminatory advertising forever and once they take out one little targeted thing
3:55 pm
like you can't target based on race and people just use that code. there's always a way to find a proxy variable so it does become hard to draw that line . >> i think on issues of race obviously if there's disparate impact meaning if you're targeting to a zip code that's really a proxy to race that that should be illegal. my sense is it's probably already illegal under existing law but if you want to have a supplemental law to make it clear that illegal, we should. and i haven't studied anna's bill in detail what if it has sufficient balance where you could still have small businesses inlocal papers use targeted advertising to build their businesses, but that you're getting at the most egregious types of targeted advertising , then i would be supportive of that approach. >> one thing about the issue that we call privacy which i call data exploitation is
3:56 pm
that the massive collection and use of personal data is also a monopoly issue. the big tech firms have the biggest data troves and this is what gives google and facebook a duopoly and online advertising in the ai range. do you view this data collection also has a monopoly issue in addition to a privacy issue and if so how would you address it? >> i think it is a challenge and the challenge is how do you address it without violating privacy? one solution would be to you give other people, other companies access to that data but then that doesn't seem right if people are giving their data with consents to a few companies to say that their data maybe now use to other companies, for other companies without their consent. so it's a very challenging conundrum. one possibility longer term is there are sources of ai that are now emerging that i
3:57 pm
write briefly about in the book that don't require troves ofdata. for example when a young child learns a word , a cat or a dog we don't show a young child thousands and thousands ofpictures of cats and dogs. they just kind of intuitively figure it out . judge tenenbaum at mit is working on that and if those s technologies emerge that minimize data, data value that would be helpful. but i think in terms of google or apple or other antitrust issues there are plenty of other issues on going over antitrust. an open today that, i guess i would want to allen's it for h privacy and you have to think that through. >> you do have a five-point plan for ai in the book and i just have to add definitely giving a little bit more i have a plan forthat . you suggest we need
3:58 pm
government audits of high-risk ai systems, disclosure of algorithmic bias and impact statements. yfederal investments for job loss, federal regulations for the workers who do the work of ai nilabeling, meaningful control and weapons systems and finally a strategy for maintaining our ai compared with china. there's a lot in there. i want to start with a slight push back on the idea of job loss created by ai because i remember the time we all workers were going to be replaced by robots but weirdly it seems like managers are being replaced by robots. all these workers their boss is an. amazon warehouse workers effectively work for an algorithm . one of the things , it turns out having a human boss is kind of an advantage.we've been doing a series with a markup called working for an
3:59 pm
hour in the ways thatpeople are scammed , estimates for instance are being scammed out of moneypeople say their calling from the main office . they never spoken to a human and then their country. when you talk about investments for jobs, loss created by ai i'm curious what kind of jobs do you see as being lost and then for instance we wantto bring back these human managers . is middle-management really the place we're going to want to reinvest ? >> is a great question and i don't believe we're headed to a jobless future by any stretch. i think one of the points i make with amazon where i call for a $15 minimum wage and amazon moved to $15 an hour and everyone said if you're going to move to a higher wage you're going to have robots and displaced workers and it turns out amazon 800, 900,000 people. the challenge is they don't have often the dignity in the workplace irand they are being
4:00 pm
often surveilled by these technology driven machines. so i guess i would say two things on the displacement that i was talking about. it is the case that things that are largely root tasks ai or done with technology. >> .. how do we make sure they are learning about the technology, using the technology and also learning the skills to contribute? less about the aggregate job
4:01 pm
loss and for making sure that doesn't disproportionately impact certain minorities. in terms of lost points or you work for, i think it's a thoughtful points, you want human discretion still there and workers havingor more empowermet at the workplace. one thing i make in the book, a thoughtfulpp philosopher said of democracy we talk about our freedom as citizens, so much of our time is up the workplace. if we don't feel free there and suffering in didid these of our boss or if it robot, what does that really mean for freedom in a society? i believe whether it's a robot or not, workers need a voice in shaping the 21st century workplace which amazon warehouse is they don't have.
4:02 pm
>> absolutely, amazon warehouses advocating for the right bathroom breaks and that is a long road to human dignity in the workplace a. but talk more about a.i. in china, you talk about how we need to make sure we win the arms race against china, one of my favorite at the university of chicago talking about concerns of letting china get ahead of us but i wonder, whatt are you worried about them getting ahead of us in? what we hear about in china is using a.i. to repress and surveilled their citizens and build thomas weapons systems, are these things we want to compete with them on? >> there is good uses of a.i. and bad uses but certainly we don't want them to develop ability and space or ability in submarines and underwater naval
4:03 pm
capacity that puts us at a disadvantage. i believe for example we have to make sure policies on taiwan, we don't want in any way china to consider invading taiwan. more broadly, the use of a.i., emerging technologies can propel productivity, economic growth, wealth generation, those are things we want in the united states and precisely to your points, we want values of liberty and privacy embedded in these platforms and not values in society that doesn't necessarily have those values in their technology. >> what you think it will take to win the a.i. race with china? >> as i say in the book, i think we are doing a lot in terms of
4:04 pm
the private sector. but the government hasn't been involved and i think the government needs to be invoked for two reasons. the transformative a.i. private sector may not have an interest for the reasons you've mentioned earlier. it may be in the interest of tech companies to have a i depend on data because it gives them a lot of advantage, it doesn't mean they will kill the innovation trying to be less a.i. but theyt may not invest like the government could. we could look at investments, universities types of a.i. that may not be data dependent. then we should look at the investments broader education and training ofol books to be operating in this world. one of the biggest to services people have done in my view when dthey say you want a digital j, you have to learn how to code.
4:05 pm
i talked about computer sciencet education but it's intimidating people say i know learned at a young age but most people say i don't want to do math and science. it turns out as technology advances, it becomes more usable. i know very little about a car and my dad knows everything about a car. how to open the hood and fix things but i don't need that anymore the technology is so advanced and same is true with computers, technology as it advances makes it more accessible and there are millions of these jobs that if you just have a basic proficiency of understanding machines, people can do without even a college degree. part of the project in the book is demystify how digital jobs are. >> i'd be remiss because a lot of your book is about job creation and iha haven't touched on that yet. you are passionate about bringing jobs to places outside
4:06 pm
of silicon valley. ideas for how to do that, it's an interesting question because some people, a lot of people advocate for we need to build more affordable housing in silicon valley tech hubs and bring people there. there are different ways to view these issues, bring the people' to where the jobs are not or bring the jobs to new locations. it seems like you have a position on the ladder. >> i advocate both, building more housing just forus the internal equity as you know, having visited there, there's a lot of inequality in the value. i represent a district with $11 trillion in market cap and the surrounding areas and get in san jose people have 50 or 60% of the income going to rent. the valley being more equitable place to live, we got to
4:07 pm
biltmore affordable housing and overcome some of the parts of the community but that is not going to do enough for the rest of the country and one thing, there are people who don't want to move. we underestimate their attachment to their hometown and sent of value on their tradition and culture and how people may be more reluctant to move now given the cost need for child care and changing in the country, a familiarity of staying put so the promise in the book in some sense is new job creation without cultural displacement. what if we could bring more economic prosperity to communities without asking you to move if you don't want to and without asking your kids to buy a one-way ticket out. i think post covid force remote
4:08 pm
experiment makes it possible. one of the critiques, i had an essay in myw, book in the "wall street journal" and one of my friends in the valley said i don't think you may meet your policies because we are already doing this, recruiting all over the country african and american communities and having companies everywhere. maybe they are doing a little more than in the past but we have a long ways to go. i think we can have policies that accelerate that. >> what is the key policy that would makeak that transition happen? >> i would argue two things. first, a significant investment in our land grant universities, smaller private colleges in partnering with the private sector to give people a credential or skill and what a digital job looks like. a lot off these things we don't
4:09 pm
have proper training in a lot of places and we haven't funded it and i believe if you do that, you would provide a pathway for many people having these jobs. i'm working with google to do that in rural communities and hbcus, i worked with accenture and reports we should scale. the second thing is for government contracts to require percentages of these tech companies to have a workforce that is rural or african-american, latino to bid on these and i think that would incentivize them to diversify their workforce, same with gender. there are huge extenders on racial exclusion. >> absolutely. i grew up in silicon valley and thought i would go into technology. there is a reason i'm not there and i went into journalism.
4:10 pm
>> i think that's okay with all of the prize-winning books, i think he your career worked out. >> silicon valley still, it often seems like reflected in their product, a lot of the products are things men want like viagra delivery to your home and i'm still waiting for them to sell me a robot that will fold laundry, my big dream for technology. [laughter] you have a proposal in your book about diversifying silicon valley that has to do with giving firms tax credits and prompts them to invest in startups led by black and brown interpreters or i want to hear more about that, they are savvy
4:11 pm
about getting tax credits, they are concerned about these companies getting more credit. >> the people writing the check right now, by not diverse, women or african-americans, they don't have people from rural communities or many parts of the country. what i say is if you're going to write checks into funds that primarily fund women entrepreneurs or african-american entrepreneurs, there has to be some incentive for these capitalists to do that. while i am forl increasing the tax rate, one possibility could be the increase, you have the same rate or less rate if you put the money in two funds that are funding african-american entrepreneurs. you look at the statistics and i was shocked, $120 billion of
4:12 pm
capitol in less than 1% going to african-american or latino founders, it's staggering less than .5 from women of color so it ise a disparity if you don't have some government program to fix that, i don't think it is organically. >> you proposed, the endless frontier act included in the infrastructure bill -- innovation, sorry. you basically are talking how boosting funding for all sorts of research from nsf and innovation that would be directed to more diverse groups, is that correct? >> correct, it would be directel toward the middle of this country, the south in greater gender and racial conclusion and
4:13 pm
it would be the largest investment in our country's history and science and technology. we are hoping to pass that in the house in february and would be enormous for semiconductors creating semiconductor t manufacturing which would be able to supply chain month my district on august $20 billion andd ohio four semiconductor plants, i wish they were out there, certainly trump would have been out there. those are the types of things i think can move the needle on a significant investment in advancedre technology and spreading that around the country creating new economic opportunity. at the heart of the book is the sense you have deindustrialization in this country, you have had lack of economic opportunity and fees
4:14 pm
are proud places. cleveland was the silicon valley in the 20th century, they don't want silicon valley billionaires making money and having a handout, they want to participate with pride in the economic production in the 21st century. i i think providing a roadmap to doing that and providing a roadmap people in different parts of the country to work with folks on the coast may help reduce bitterness, some of the division plaguing our democracy, that was the motivating factor for writing the book, how do we technology the surface of these ideals as opposed to forced democratic ideals? >> interestingly, it does involve the government steering the shift and forcing redistributionre. it's interesting and reminds me when we mobilized russians into
4:15 pm
space and that spurred the last big government spending on research i think in science and technology so you're proposing a similar thing, no? >> similar to the space race and of course i am grateful for that because that's how my parents came to the united states my father is an engineer and there were two things that changed the law w so he could come from ind, one was doctor king civil rights movement and that led to the 65 immigration reform act, non- europeans could calm, there were huge quotas against that and the space race where people said we want engineers and scientists in this country. what i'm saying is let's have that investment, the distribution of opportunity and here is where i think it is important to have a distinction, it's not reese distribution post economic distribution we need billionaires and billionaires in
4:16 pm
production, i think the harder challenge is how do we have distribution of opportunity prior to production? is a brilliant book in the london school of economics kelemaking this points of how te democrats need a vision that empowers people to participate in the productive capacity of kthe economy and this book is trying to do that in the digital space. >> a very ambitious agenda. you do have answers for everything so you touch on some hot buttons, everybody has a solution for fake news o althouh there is no solution at the same time. your innovative approach if i understand correctly, involves getting to choose their own algorithms used to create their newsfeed and that in some ways is open source. it seems like an interesting idea and i wanted to hear more about that and it seems like it
4:17 pm
maliciousasy for actors to gain that. >> it is a challenging situation especially with the first amendment. you don't want the government being the arbiter of truth and most people don't want zuckerberg or dorsey being the arbiter of truth so how can we get better conversations? it turns out these two professors have done a study that shows if crowd source what news people listen to, republican's, independents and democrats converge on 20 sites they think would be good sources. that would include msnbc but doesn't include real far out stuff. what i say is if you have an option of o streaming where you could stream crowd sourced news option maybe we start to build a vocabulary but the reason is not that particular insight
4:18 pm
or proposal, there's another proposal i have that says someone is pro choice or pro life and you give pro-choice if i said someone who is pro life why they should be pro-choice, they are likely to dig into their position, not likely to move or deliberate but if it is a friend who sent them back, they actually may consider why don't we have social networks exposing these perspectives your friends m have? would be a simple tweak to move the needle. what i'm saying is there is noti sufficient reflection in these social media companies about their responsibility to democracy, what they can do to be innovative to improve democratic deliberation. they should probably go the political science faculty and higher 50 of these books to think about these experiments how they can be stakeholders and democracy they first have to
4:19 pm
admit that as part of their role not maximization of a private company. >> most companies don't seek their mission other than maximizing profit and there is an argument out there that companies that basically govern the political discourse we have on their platforms, they should be utilities because they would be forced to be neutral and we wouldn't have them optimizing for profits because that's what their shareholders demand, they would be forced to have a public mandate. what you think of that argument? >> i don't think media companiem are simply about profit maximization. i think a lot of companies care about profit but i don't know if you're still at the new york
4:20 pm
times or journalism or if you've worked there, they have a sense of yes, we got newspapers but we also have to care about what we are contributed to the public debate. i think these companies have to identify themselves partly media companies. yes, they are private companies but also companies with obligation. i amblm reluctant to have these companies become utilities for a couple of reasons. first, i think in part, innovation i think guaranteed rate of process that may entrench the companies and not allow other competitors to emerge and there are certain types of speech, a public forum is important in one contributor of beach but there speech forms, there may not be as much as a public forum the government with reasonable rulese of debate, you may want protest linkage of
4:21 pm
anger. when i would rather have his multiplicity of these forms having competition law and hope with good privacy laws and internet bill of rights and qc social media efforts emerge like journalistic efforts emerge. >> that's interesting, i think these companies have resisted wanted to be f called social mea largely because t of social med, they don't want to be liable for what they've published, i spent all of my time worried about liability and being sued about everything i say. this is a hot button issue but where do you stand on section 230 and liabilities for tech companies? should there be more carveouts than they are for the community they have had so far? >> there should.
4:22 pm
the most egregious example, facebook according to the ugly truth, the book recently published new, private security knew beforee january 6 there would be threats on the vice president pent life and members of congress with concrete detail. there is a decision facebook made not to share the information with law enforcement and sit on it. that, in myec view,w, is outrag. section 230 should be amended at the very least to say if you have speech on your platform, that doesn't meet incitement to violence or incitement to illegal conduct, you have to remove it, you could require a court order to do it but i think that would clear platforms of the most egregious content. you could have some basic enforcement of consumer protection in public health
4:23 pm
safety on these platforms. do i think they should be responsible for every single policyhi -- millions of policie? no, there has to be a balance but there certainly can be reformed to 230 and a good start would be to have court ordered speech remove which violate brandenburg. >> one of the more intriguing pieces about section 230 is companies should be liable for content they choose to amplifyng the if they speculate things chronologically or whatever, they don't have to take responsibly if they are boosting things and promoting them, they have involved themselves content and they are liable. >> i am open to that in terms of if the content is illegal under
4:24 pm
certain standards and the amplify that, they become a publisher in some sense, that is something i would look at and it seems to mee consistent with the first amendment because obviously they would have the first amendment right to amplify it but they don't have first amendment right to amplify defamation and they are involved. that is another place where we can look to have reform. >> let's talk about something that i don't think is in the book as much but is so hot these days which is crypto, whatever you want to call it, it seems to me you rented it as a cool innovation and in the book the crypto industry clarified in legislation but as you probably so, there is this enormous
4:25 pm
amount of fraud in the crypto space, more than $80 million worth of scams in the past six months of crypto, i am curious, what do you think about this, is it innovative? what does it need to be done to rein in, if anything? >> i think there is a baseline innovationon to block pain and s sti understand it, it allows you to transfer your money in a quicker way and eliminating without a middle person basically saving on transaction cost for overseas or moving money one place to another and allows you to engage in contracts without a third-party
4:26 pm
verifier so you have smart contracts. you could think of having infritextbooks distorted where everyone gets a token, who was to read a college textbooks and reducing costs of distribution of a book while keeping intellectual property. there are, in my understanding, value created. i've had a disagreement with professor who said it digital cold. yeah, it's partly digitalol cold but also partly value added. there's no doubt there's a lot of fraud and no doubt if something out of a howie test, a famous case is something seeking investment for appreciation and should be regulated under fec law of securities. if someone is doing that and seeking investment, that should be regulated that way. there may be meeting new laws of
4:27 pm
what a digital asset is in terms of how to regulate it because i digital asset may have decentralization where the company isn't as involved so deemed security what would be most helpful to learn more about the block chain itself, we can see but the regulatory framework should look like but there definitely needs to be regulatory framework in play. >> we have a little bit of time left so i i want to end on the issue that everybody cares about, one of the most emotional issues with children and screen time. during pandemic about all of us parents i think i've given up, i don't know, maybe just me and that my kids do whatever they want on the screen but you talk about how there should be flagrant violations of the children's online privacy act and companies base their
4:28 pm
liability, and maybe he is a i to determine their ages, i'd like to hear mark what you think could be done and whether it's too late. already, they are already glued to screens. >> i think it's a very hard time to be a parent in this age. i say that as a father so we have to figure out how we support parents making decisions that allow kids reflect and think and play outside and not just be glued to their device. in silicon valley, these tech leaders gadgets away from their kidsur so how do we ensure that? what i write about in the book,
4:29 pm
it struck me as absurd these companies can't figure out if someone is too young on their platforms. give me a break, algorithms figure out everything else including how to target a person down to exactly what ad theyex n see and you're telling me you can't see if somebody is under 13 on their platform? we should raise the age to 15 or 16 and strict liability. if someone under the age is on your platform. the reason our cover teens, instagram is appalling, they basically have data knowing they are creating more depression, more suicidal thoughts amongst teenagers, how do we accept that? there ought to be consumer protection laws that make that illegal and the kids shouldn't have likes and shares if that is the result. if you want likes and shares for adults, you have to make sure for minors there are greater protections. i write about where i think they
4:30 pm
could be and senator markey has been leading the effort in the senate. it seems that has bipartisan support and can become law. >> i'll leave it on an optimistic moment that maybe we will have some protection for our kids. .thank you very much for taking the time to discuss your book. it was a pleasure. >> i appreciate the opportunity. ♪♪ >> c-spanshop.org as he stands online store. browse the latest collections. apparel, books, home decor and accessories. something for every c-span fan and every purchase supports nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime c-spanshop.org. ♪♪ >> there are a lot of people's getting political information.
4:31 pm
the only at c-span you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. ♪♪ unfiltered, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters. america watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> some people say artificial intelligence is going to make the human race obsolete. a lot of people don't want to think about a.i. artificial intelligence,al it's an intimidating subject but the thing about a.i., even if you don't want to think about it, it's thinking about you. or is it? that will be the lesson discussed today on this episode of independent conversations. greetings everyone who has joined us.

29 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on