Post

Before diving in, just for giggles, Ireland currently holds the rotating Presidency of the Council but their proposed compromise text is so spectacularly bad that their own AI Minister won't even admit to it being their proposal. mu.social/profile/toni...

The Tonight Show@tonightvmtv.bsky.social

Ireland's AI Minister refutes claims that the Irish presidency had a hand in drafting legislation that would scrap GDPR protections for AI products.  #TonightVMTV

For context: Ireland is MAGA's primary beachhead in Europe. As indicated in the video, part of the proposal is that you would no longer need to consent to your personal data being used if it's for AI. The only companies this benefits are those with large existing surveillance systems: MAGA techs.

That's not the only issue: • The text is very favourable to tech monopolies and supports them against challengers. • It fails to simplify, even very obvious things. • The way in which it kills cookie banners is broken. • It directly undermines national security & online safety of vulnerable people.

I won't recap my entire proposal, but here are some highlights in presented in problem/solution pairs. PROBLEM: The omnibus has a broken theory of how the digital economy works. It follows the belief that there's a "data economy" and that the more data circulates, the more value is created.

SOLUTION: That's simply wrong. The value of circulating data depends on what the data refers to: • Gains from being shared (antirival): e.g. the rules of a game. • Neutral when shared (nonrival): e.g. a factoid. • Loses when shared (rival): e.g. purchase intentions, product behaviour.

In most cases in the digital economy, a consumer-facing business sharing data with other parties is *losing* value in the process. This is particularly true of advertising businesses sharing with competitors like Google or Meta. Hot tip: sharing a business asset with competitors is bad, actually.

1 repost10 likes

Instead of the omnibus's loosening of the rules that protect businesses' data advantage, which favours firms with enough market power to force others to give them data (you know who), my proposal has a series of measures to protect businesses against these depredations.

And the funny thing is: making the data economy better for businesses that aren't tech monopolies also brings better privacy to people. Anyone telling you it's a choice between the two has been snorting too much tech lobbying.

PROBLEM: The omnibus offers a solution against cookie banners but then makes it not apply to media sites. The net result is: 1) Publishers, who need the greatest protection from Google taking their data, are unprotected. 2) Media sites become even shittier by comparison, helping Apple News, etc.