After a year of constantly stalking tech companies and internet platforms, it’s no surprise that a bipartisan group of senators — Republicans Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley and Democrat Elizabeth Warren — are crafting a proposal to regulate, or even authorize, all social media companies. .
Some have gone further and insisted that there should be a dedicated regulatory agency to oversee “Big Tech” more generally, and Democratic Senator Michael Bennett has introduced a bill to create such an agency.
Graham – like many before him – suggested that the United States should have a technology regulatory system comparable to Europe’s. Indeed, many critics of the big US tech giants have pointed to European Union (EU) regulations as a sign that we are “falling behind”.
The fact that Europe has preceded us in its attempts to become the world’s regulators of technology does not mean that it is an example to follow. On the contrary, the European Union’s (EU) propensity for precautionary regulation is one reason why almost none of the big tech companies it aims to govern are truly European.
The EU’s approach seems to be, in essence, “If you can’t innovate, regulate”.
There is some truth in the “delay” story; however, to the extent that the EU’s torrent of tech-heavy regulations may hamper US leaders’ ability to establish standard practices for emerging technologies. For example, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has become the In fact global standard for privacy and data security, with companies like Google and Meta already adapting their practices accordingly. The EU is rapidly moving towards a similar approach to regulating artificial intelligence (AI), and there are rumors that the “metaverse” – i.e. augmented and virtual reality – could be next.
If we follow Europe’s approach, we will pay the price by reducing innovation and competition. As we have seen in various industries, overly prescriptive regulatory burdens create barriers to entry into regulated markets. Large incumbents, for example, have the resources to adapt and comply, unlike startups. Research already indicates that the GDPR has had this effect by “creating more concentrated market structures and strengthening the market power of those who are already strong”.
These obstacles could be particularly devastating if applied to the development of technologies such as blockchain; augmented and virtual reality; and AI. For example, Europe’s approach to AI regulation has been colored by dystopian thinking that could preemptively ban all uses of AI, or only allow it. on the basis of “mom, can I”. To quote AI and technology policy analyst Adam Thierer: “European policymakers are essentially forcing their best and brightest innovators to sit on the fence and watch the rest of the world pass them on the technology front. digital technology and AI.”
Unfortunately, this techno-dystopian mentality has spread widely across the United States, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle at the state and federal levels pursuing new laws that generally fail to consider how they would actually affect technology. they seek to regulate. . These proposals often claim to protect children, fight “tech addiction”, “censorship” or protect consumers from fraud. But these proposals boil down to bans or regulations seemingly unconcerned about how companies would enforce them or how they would affect actual consumers.
That’s not to say that social media, AI, metaverse, or other emerging technologies like commercial drones don’t pose certain risks of harm or that these technologies should be exempt from regulation. But the difference in mentality between the US and Europe is generally that we regulate to deal with specific harms that the market cannot solve rather than the EU’s approach of ban first and ask questions later. The United States has become the world leader in the development of the Internet and the digital economy precisely because we have allowed the commercial Internet to develop with relatively little government interference compared to other industries.
We would do well to come up with a better, leaner alternative to clumsy regulatory regimes like GDPR, but so far our sclerotic Congress has proven unable to rise to the task. In the case of the interconnected issues of data privacy and cybersecurity, there has long been consensus across the ideological spectrum on the need for some form of regulatory framework at the federal level. Various bills aimed at creating such a framework have been advanced over the past decade, but a handful of narrow sticking points between key lawmakers have kept one of them near the finish line. .
The best outcome would be for Congress and U.S. regulators to engage in dialogue with the tech industry and a broad base of policy experts to produce basic, lightweight frameworks to regulate emerging technologies based on mitigating real harms. for consumers, but otherwise allowing permissions without permission. innovation. If Congress can’t get there, the best approach is not to accept whatever set of hard and imperfect laws we can get, but to turn to “soft law” and the decentralized, multiparty governance mechanisms that are much more agile in responding to technological changes than a regulatory bureaucracy.
Regardless, US lawmakers (and their constituents) must give our tech companies, large and small, the space they need to innovate and lead the next great wave of human progress.Josh Withrow is a technology and innovation researcher at the R Street Institute.
#Withrow #Dont #stifle #tech #innovation #European #rules