Horses

One man's disinformation is another man's truth.

UK revisits social media regulation after far-right riots

Imagine the poor social media company. Every country is seeking to grab a share of their revenue. (Why is it always 10% f worldwide revenue?) Here, the UK is going after any company that lets what they deem “misinformation” to pass through. Sounds noble, doesn’t it?

Imagine this edge case. Country A says that there is no way that drug X cures disease 123. Country B advocates for using drug X to treat disease 123. You run a global social media platform. What do you do? Both countries have a 10% penalty for publishing misinformation.

You could only let people promote drug X in country B. But that’s still going to get you a 10% hickey from country A. Maybe they’re worried about their citizens traveling to country B and seeing this pernicious lie (because, of course, everyone knows that drug X is for animals).

You could censor all talk of drug X, but people in country B might be upset. They worry that their inability to proselytize for drug X might cause people to die unnecessarily. So you get a 10% penalty from country B.

‘The act, passed in October but not set to be enforced until early next year, allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of global turnover if they are found in breach.

‘At present, companies would only face a fine if they fail to police illegal content, such as incitments to violence or hate speech. Proposed changes could see Ofcom sanction companies if they allow "legal but harmful" content such as misinformation to flourish.’

A Survey Finds AI Workers Support AI Regulation, Though Not How Government is Doing it Now

People who work in the industry are skeptical of government’s ability to regulate AI properly. Go figure.

‘Since the survey involved questioning senior staff already in roles that exposed them to the high-tech magic of AI, it's not entirely surprising that respondents were dubious about government handing of the AI revolution but highly confident of their own companies' responses. 

‘Fully 88 percent of the survey respondents said they were very trustful of the way their company will deal with the future of AI, and 75 percent thought enough training and upskilling was in place. More people at companies with over 1,000 staff held this belief (87 percent) than respondents at small companies (55 percent).’

Bureaucracy is driving Las Vegas’ land crisis, real estate stakeholders say

One of the contributors to housing shortages is bureaucracy, Nevada edition.

‘Buying and developing land in the Las Vegas Valley is a bureaucratic mess involving three separate levels of government, inflated appraisal prices and too much red tape, according to industry stakeholders who want the process streamlined to help alleviate the issue.’

Small businesses are frustrated with Chicago's bureaucracy as they wait for reforms

There is no cost-benefit analysis done on regulation, per se. At least not one that accounts for the costs imposed on businesses. We might as well call the costs of bureaucratic intervention imposed on the private sector as externalities. But that would be too ironic. Even for me.

‘One example is applying for special use permits, which is required for nail salons and other businesses. The permit is meant to manage the types and numbers of businesses in an area so, for example, a neighborhood isn’t saturated with one kind of business.

‘Special use permit applications cost about $1,000. And a hard copy must be delivered in person to the Zoning Board of Appeals office so the applicant can pay the fee and pick up a public notice sign to post outside the proposed business. The applicant must also send notices to nearby property owners then wait about 30 to 60 days for a hearing with the zoning board. The wait time can be longer if plans must be revised.

‘Meanwhile, the applicant may be paying rent and utilities on an empty space as they wait months for a permit that could be denied, said business owner Martin, who has gone through the process with her nail salons.’

Neil Gorsuch: ‘Rule by nobody’ undermines our nation’s respect for the individual

Bureaucracies make ordinary people suffer

‘In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama spoke of the growth of federal administrative agencies in recent years — and by implication the difficulty any president faces in trying to oversee it all. The president observed that we now have 12 different agencies that deal with exports and at least five responsible for housing policy. He added, "The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater. I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked."  

‘Thinking the president had exaggerated, fact-checkers busily got to work. In the end, they rated his statement "mostly true" — but only because it "unders[old] the complexity." ‘

Neoliberal Bureaucracy: Making the Left Look Bad

Managerialism ain’t just a river in Egypt.

‘It’s a result of the market-inspired mindset in the corporate and public sectors more broadly, what David Graeber singles out as the massive expansion of interlocking public and private bureaucracies that accompanied the rise of neoliberalism and financialization of the economy. Graeber argues in Bullshit Jobs that ultimately this managerialism in academia isn’t about quality in education, saving money, or anything of the sort. At its core, it’s about expanding the sector of administrators involved in purchasing and deploying the latest IT systems, spreading neoliberal rhetoric, creating low-wage non-tenured positions, and channeling large numbers of students into the college loan system. These changes have little to do with thrift, focusing on what matters, or opening college to groups historically excluded from higher learning. It’s about fostering a culture of self-perpetuating managerialism. As Graeber points out, the helping professions like education, healthcare, and public service have turned into top-heavy, tech-saturated bureaucracies that suck money and resources away from the helping that they’re supposed to do.’

The Anti-Regulation Quartet and Internationally Informed Regulation

Regulations and standards across countries are more vulnerable in the US thanks to Loper and other deregulatory initiatives.

‘In what follows, I highlight the unique features of internationally informed regulation and outline preliminary thoughts about the potential implications of the Court’s decisions. One key implication is that a host of internationally informed regulations that don’t fit within the Court’s idea of foreign affairs and national security actions have been made much more vulnerable by the Anti-Regulation Quartet. Clear-cut foreign affairs and national security actions are unlikely to be significantly affected. But internationally informed agency actions outside a vaguely defined foreign affairs and national security core are now at greater risk — at least as a matter of doctrine.’