There's an old saying, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day,” and it seems the newest legislation on privacy to be signed by California Governor Jerry Brown against “Big Tech” companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and many others have stirred the pot of infighting amongst Democrats over the new law.
The law began as a rushed piece of legislation which was set to protect the privacy of users on the internet.
Most Americans have no idea that a process is known as “data mining” is used to harvest information about them on various websites and platforms, and then that information is sold to the highest bidder whether it be for marketing or research purposes. It does happen, and there isn't a website in the world which doesn't use this to their advantage.
The sale and harvesting a data, however, is a violation of the privacy and rights of the everyday user of the internet.
There's always stipulations and terms of services for various online websites or platforms, whether it be YouTube or Twitter or even Facebook; <i>but how many people read those terms of service?</i>
Chances are, not many.
<div style="width:100%;text-align:center;margin:0 auto;"><iframe width="360" height="202" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EV0oxDintWo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
If you did, you'd see what was happening with much of your data and information that's provided to the platform.
Since most do not take the time to research what it is they're approving a company to do with their data, it's a clever means of companies avoiding their users from becoming frustrated or angry with what they're doing to turn a profit.
That being said, California has taken additional steps to protect users from this type of activity, by signing the recently passed California Consumer Privacy Act, which was signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.
For most of our readers, they hear the name Jerry Brown, and they instantly assume anything he's in favor of is “bad,” which for the most part is true.
The Governor of California is a radicalized Marxist, an anti-Trump liberal sycophant, who tends to push a Communist agenda under the guise of “progressive” values.
This law protects consumers. So I'm a bit shocked to say I support the rights of the American people to be protected, and I agree with the battle against “Big Tech, “ because privacy is so important.
Here's the catch, though, which is that any big governance is usually a bad move. Most Conservatives would agree with this statement.
Intrusion from the government tends to become manipulative or fail, and that's because government works at a snail's pace to implement the proper changes necessary to fine-tune anything.
The counter offer from the liberal tech companies doesn't seem to be any better.
The Vice President of State Government Affairs for the Internet Association, Robert Callahan, argued that the bill itself didn't seem to gain enough review before its passage.
“Data regulation policy is complex and impacts every sector of the economy, including the internet industry. That makes the lack of public discussion and process surrounding this far-reaching bill even more concerning,” Callahan said of the new bill. “It is critical going forward that policymakers work to correct the inevitable, negative policy and compliance ramifications this last-minute deal will create for California’s consumers and businesses alike.”
That could be a problem, sure, but the fact that “Big Tech” is angry about the bill is somewhat pleasing on the surface.
When companies like Google’s YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have engaged in some of the worst political censorship in the history of the nation by silencing or punishing Conservative voices, one can help but laugh when they're upset about a new law.
They're certainly not getting any support from Trump supporters or the millions of people who have been subject to their biased policies.
Google spokeswoman Katherine Williams argued that the bill itself is vague, and could have implications for a variety of industries which rely upon a tech-heavy world in 2018.
“While today's law marks some improvements to an overly vague and broad ballot measure, it came together under extreme time pressure, and imposes sweeping novel obligations on thousands of large and small businesses around the world, across every industry,” Williams said. “We appreciate that California legislators recognize these issues and we look forward to improvements to address the many unintended consequences of the law.”
This is a fair argument, and not necessarily one you'd expect the globalist-backing Google to suggest: <i>there's a chance this regulation affects small businesses in other categories.</i>
Again, regulations are always unnecessary, but so is the censorship from online behemoths like Google, so I'm not sure they're the best candidates to speak about this.
Whereas the new law will force all companies to show their users exactly what they're doing with their online information, this much is a good thing.
It will also require those companies to tell their users exactly which third-parties are sold or given access to that information. We all like transparency, so this is also a positive.
Even better, all users will have the ability to opt-out of these types of services entirely.
One has to ask the question as to whether those companies will somehow punish users who do opt-out.
We know, for example, Twitter practices shadowbanning techniques against Conservatives who speak pro-Trump rhetoric, so why wouldn't they react to those who are affecting their profit margins?
<div style="width:100%;text-align:center;margin:0 auto;"><iframe width="360" height="202" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hQtfB3_yTOM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
We know that for nearly a decade Twitter failed to turn a profit, but as<a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/twitter-earnings-growth-relied-on-selling-user-data-2018-04-25"> Marketwatch </a>announced in April, Twitter’s high-margin data-licensing segment had its best quarter ever at $90 million in sales, a dramatic change for the company.
The company earns a large portion of its revenue from advertising, but by selling the data they've harvested, they've found a reliable source of income.
This brings new questions to the law in California, as to whether the decision to opt-out can be punishable by companies.
We simply don't have that answer, but we're certain the companies who have engaged in sketchy practices in the past wouldn't rule out such a practice.
What are your thoughts on the law? Is it unnecessary? Is it helpful in the fight against “Big Tech” to protect your privacy?
List them below.
Additional Sources or Relevant Information:
<strong><span style="color:red;">Tips? Info? Send me a message!</span></strong>
~<b>Send Me An E-Mail!</b>
<b><i>Follow Me On Twitter!</i></b>
<span style="margin-top:15px;rgba(42,51,6,0.7);font-size:12px;"><i>Be Sure To Share Our Articles!</i></span>
<span style="margin-top:15px;rgba(42,51,6,0.7);font-size:12px;"><b>The Goldwater</b></span>