Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
FCC wants to change Section 230 regulating tech companies & censorship
Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, shares his perspective on technology news in Tech In (a little over) 60 Seconds:
What is the deal with Twitter and Facebook censoring a New York Post story on Hunter Biden?
The New York Post ran a story on Hunter Biden. It may have been entirely false. It may have been hacked. Both of those things are problems. But the complicated thing is when the story ran, nobody at Facebook and nobody at Twitter knew whether it was false or whether it had been hacked. The two companies responded in different ways. Facebook said, we're just going to down-rank it. Twitter initially said, "we just won't let it be shared." Twitter then backtracked. Basically, there is a really hard problem of what you do with false information and what you do with hacked information. Neither company has totally clear policies and both got caught in the slipstream.
Was the censoring of the New York Post story the catalyst for the FCC's public statements to rewrite Section 230?
Yes, absolutely. So Section 230 is the very important Internet law that allows the tech companies to filter content on their platforms. It essentially says, hey, if you run a platform, whether it's Facebook, Twitter or a Web site comments, you are not responsible for comments and for content that other people post there. And not only that, you have the ability to within certain limits, censor, change, edit the content out there without becoming a publisher and becoming liable. So that is partly what has allowed the tech companies to do what they do. It's allowed them to thrive and it's also allowed them to have policies policing misinformation or false statements on their platforms. So, Donald Trump got very mad at it, and so Ajit Pai, the head of the FCC, said, "hey, we're going to look at Section 230 and interpret it." In my opinion, that's garbage. Section 230 may be a bad law. It may be bad that the tech companies filter content on their platforms, whatever. I don't see how the FCC has the authority to deal with that. It is a law that gets interpreted by the courts. So, Congress can change the law, or the courts can change the interpretation of the law. I don't see why the FCC has authority, but who knows? It's just my guess, Ajit Pai is trying to please Donald Trump.
Social media sites overwhelmed by misinformation about Trump's condition
Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, shares his perspective on technology news in Tech In 60 Seconds:
With Trump testing positive for corona, how are social media sites combating the mountains of misinformation?
Well, the same way they always do, demoting some content, labeling some false content, but mostly getting overwhelmed. And the reason they'll get particularly overwhelmed now is that there could be no topic more ripe for misinformation than this one. The White House will be opaque. People will spread every rumor imaginable. And just the nature of the Internet combining coronavirus and Trump, you can get a misinformation orgy.
New York City released a contact tracing app. How does it work and will other cities adopt it?
Well, it's a new app you download it onto your phone. What it does is it will alert you if you have been in close contact with someone who tests positive for corona. Or if you test positive, you enter into the app and it will alert people whose phones have been near yours receiving Bluetooth signals anonymously. That's a very good thing. I've installed it. I hope everybody does, keep everybody safe. See you next week.
What the tech antitrust hearing did and did not prove
What happened at the antitrust hearings this week?
Well, CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook testified in front of the Subcommittee in Antitrust of the House Judiciary Committee for five hours. There's a fair amount of nonsense and conspiracy talk, but mostly it was a pretty good hearing where the House members dug into questions about whether four companies abused their market positions to their advantage? Whether they used predatory pricing to drive competitors out of the market? Whether they used inside information from their services to identify and then copy and kill competitors? And the evidence that was presented, if I were to sum it up quickly, is, yes, they did do that. They did abuse their market power. But what wasn't presented was clear evidence of consumer harm. We know they acted in ways that distorted capitalism, but were people really hurt? That's a big question. I look forward to their report.
Twitter bans QAnon; CRISPR gene tech
Nicholas Thompson, Editor-in-chief of WIRED, provides his perspective on technology news:
Twitter has said it will knockout QAnon. How will that work out?
QAnon is a strange, mysterious, far-right conspiracy theory. Twitter removing it will actually make a difference. It's very easy to say, "oh, we'll just migrate to Facebook or elsewhere," and that is partly true, but Twitter is a central node in how the conspiracy theory is spread. Remove it, and it will spread more slowly.
How close are we to CRISPR agriculture?
Well, this is in response to a story we just ran in WIRED about the first CRISPR born cow, a cow whose genes had been adjusted using the technique of CRISPR to make it then male, which is better for beef cows. Dairy cows, you want female. Beef cows, you want male. It didn't work out perfectly. The cow is a boy but has all kinds of other problems suggesting for this particular use of CRISPR, it's going to be a long time.
Twitter hack mystery; does two-factor authentication make you safe?
Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, helps us make sense of today's stories in technology:
Whoa Twitter! What happened this week?
Well, on Wednesday, a whole bunch of prominent Twitter accounts, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Apple, started tweeting out a Bitcoin scam. The same one. It said, "send money to this address and we'll send you back twice as much." Clearly a fraud. But what was interesting about it is that it wasn't like one account that had been compromised. A whole bunch of accounts have been compromised. Meaning most likely someone got access to a control panel at Twitter. The big mystery is how they got access to it? And why, if they had so much power, all they did was run a stupid Bitcoin scam?
How can we keep ourselves safe? Is two-factor authentication the only option?
Two-factor authentication, you need two things to get into your account, your cell phone and your password, is absolutely essential. With this hack, though, that wouldn't have helped you. The only thing you could possibly have done is have deleted your Twitter account. Which is a reminder, remove all the accounts you don't use, all the accounts you don't want, move all the applications with access to the accounts that you want. Basically, constantly, constantly clean out your barn.
Can Facebook's algorithm remove hate speech? Meltdown-proof nuclear reactors
Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, discusses technology industry news today:
Do some of the Facebook's best features, like the newsfeed algorithm or groups, make removing hate speech from the platform impossible?
No, they do not. But what they do do is make it a lot easier for hate speech to spread. A fundamental problem with Facebook are the incentives in the newsfeed algorithm and the structure of groups make it harder for Facebook to remove hate speech.
In general, have tech companies become more or less wary of the Trump administration in recent months?
Vastly less wary. I think that's partly because they think Trump might lose, so they're less worried about retaliation. Also their employees are very mad.
Do you really believe that a meltdown-proof nuclear reactor is possible?
No, but I am excited about the future of small nuclear reactors that have anti-meltdown technology built into each little grain of uranium.
When are you joining Parler?
Parler is the free speech, social media alternative. And I am already on it. I joined it a few days ago.
Facebook Removes Warren's Ads: Tech in 60 Seconds
Facebook restored Elizabeth Warren's political ads after she violated their terms of service.
It's Tech in 60 Seconds with Nicholas Thompson and Ian Bremmer!
And go deeper on topics like cybersecurity and artificial intelligence at Microsoft Today in Technology.
Facebook's Privacy Manifesto: Tech in 60 Seconds
Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a new privacy manifesto this week, but will it really change the way Facebook operates?
It's Tech in 60 Seconds with Nicholas Thompson!
And go deeper on topics like cybersecurity and artificial intelligence at Microsoft Today in Technology.