Monday , February 24 2020
Home / newzealand / The new internet rules have to be updated. Let's start in these four areas.

The new internet rules have to be updated. Let's start in these four areas.



Technology is a key part of our lives, and companies have major commitments on Facebook. Every day, we make decisions about which language is dangerous, what is political advertising, and how to stop positive cyberattacks. These are important to keeping our community safe. However, if we were starting from scratch, we do not ask companies to make these judgments on their own.

I believe we need a more active place for governments and governors. By updating the rules for the internet, we can preserve what is best about it – the freedom of self expression and for entrepreneurs to build new things – and the society- t protection from wider problems.

Since I learned, I think we need new governance in four areas: harmful content, electoral integrity, privacy and data access.

First, harmful content. Facebook gives everyone a chance to use their voice, and that creates real benefits – from sharing experiences to growing trends. As part of this, we are responsible for keeping people safe on our services. That means deciding what it represents as hostile propaganda, hate speech and more. We constantly review our policies with experts, but at this stage we always make mistakes and decisions that people don't agree with.

Legislators often tell me that we have too much power to speak, and I certainly agree. I have come to believe that we should not make important decisions about speech alone. So we create an independent organization so that people can appeal about our decisions. We are also working with governments, including French officials, to ensure the effectiveness of content review systems.

Internet companies should be responsible for implementing harmful content standards. It is impossible to remove all harmful content from the internet, but when people use a dozen different shared services – each with their own policies and processes – we need a more systematic approach.

One view is that third party organizations will set standards that regulate the distribution of dangerous materials and measure the number of companies against these standards. Management of a line could be set for what is prohibited and companies can charge systems to minimize the harmful content of our products.

Facebook already publishes topical reports about how effective we are extracting impressive content. I believe that all these web services should be made quarterly, as it is as important as financial statements. Once we understand how much dangerous content is available, we can see which companies are developing and where we should set the underlying lines.

Second, important legislation is there to protect elections. Facebook has already made some big changes to political advertising: Advertisers in many countries have to prove their identity before buying political adverts. We built a searchable archive showing who to pay for adverts, what other adverts they run and the audiences who watched the adverts. But, deciding whether or not political is always easy. Our systems would have been more efficient if governing rules have put in place common political rules.

Online political laws are particularly focused on candidates and elections, rather than scattered political issues where we have tried to submit more. Some laws apply only to elections, although information campaigns are unique. And there are also important questions about how political campaigns use data and targeting. We believe legislation should be updated to reflect the truth of risks and set standards for the business as a whole.

Third, there is a need for effective data protection and protection with a global framework. Legislature all over the world granted legislative consent under the European Union General Data Protection Rule, and I agree. I think it would be good for the internet to see more countries adopting governance such as GDPR as a general framework.

A new confidentiality rule in the United States and around the world should build on the defenses GDPR provides. It should protect your right to use your information – while also allowing companies to use information for the purpose of providing safety and services. Data should not be stored locally, which would make it more easily accessed. And it should set up a way to hold companies like Facebook to account by taking control of things when we make mistakes.

I also believe that a global global framework – rather than a radically changing rule for the country and the state – is ensuring that the internet is not interrupted, entrepreneurs can build results. that everyone receives, and that everyone has the same protection.

How lawyers adopt new privacy rules, I hope they can help by answering some of the questions that GDPR opens. We need clear rules about when information can be used to serve public good and how it should relate to new technologies such as voluntary intelligence.

Finally, regulation should confirm the principle of accessibility of data. If you are sharing a data with one service, it should be possible to move you to another. This gives people the choice and gives developers an opportunity to innovate and compete.

This is important for the internet – and for creating services that people want. That is why we built our development platform. A true data view should look more like the way people use our platform to enter your app the existing ways you can archive your messages download information. But this requires clear rules on who is responsible for information protection when it moves between services.

This also requires common standards, which is why we support a common transition format for data and the Open Data Project.

I think Facebook has responsibility for dealing with these issues, and I look forward to talking to them with lawyers around the world. We have built positive systems for searching for harmful content, stopping election selection and more prominent advertising. However, individuals should not rely on individual companies to deal with these matters on their own. We should have a more wide-ranging debate about what we want as a society and how it can help management. These four areas are important, but of course there is more to discuss.

The internet rules allowed generations of campaigners to raise services that changed the world and created a great deal of value in people's lives. It's time to update these rules to explain clear roles for people, companies and governments going forward.


Source link