Margrethe Vestager gets a lot of headlines, but without results. It's time to stop taking her quest for headlines seriously, and to focus on whether there will be any impact from the new law.
Though somewhat tangential, I would argue that the Australian journalism law is not really a solution. Read a little Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald to see just how toxic main stream journalism can be. (Though I think you already know quite well.) Diverting money to them as a "subsidy" has a lot of the characteristics of a kick-back. I am NOT comforted by the "mere statistic" that it is easier for *students* (in the generic) to get journalism jobs.
I say this fully aware of the dire situation for independent, competent journalists. I care about it. I've tried to come up with ways for people like Matt Stoller to more easily fund his work. The problem is that the goal can't be simply "push more money into journalism," it has to be change financial incentives so that there are more important drivers of revenue than targeted advertising.
As a tecchnologist I'd say it all comes down to how well DMA is enforced, it sounds like just about everything I'd ask for from politicians. We need knowledgable technologists who value privacy and competition at the helm of this enforcement, or it could easily backfire.
I haven't read the DMA text-is it vague, or non prescriptive?. There is a difference.
As an example: EU GDPR law was deliberately non prescriptive; the outcomes and rights were defined, but not the precise way to achieve them (i.e. Law said what, not how). That's smart flexibility and allows case law and detailed regulations to evolve with tech. Although it does make figuring out how to comply hard in early days
Though somewhat tangential, I would argue that the Australian journalism law is not really a solution. Read a little Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald to see just how toxic main stream journalism can be. (Though I think you already know quite well.) Diverting money to them as a "subsidy" has a lot of the characteristics of a kick-back. I am NOT comforted by the "mere statistic" that it is easier for *students* (in the generic) to get journalism jobs.
I say this fully aware of the dire situation for independent, competent journalists. I care about it. I've tried to come up with ways for people like Matt Stoller to more easily fund his work. The problem is that the goal can't be simply "push more money into journalism," it has to be change financial incentives so that there are more important drivers of revenue than targeted advertising.
As a tecchnologist I'd say it all comes down to how well DMA is enforced, it sounds like just about everything I'd ask for from politicians. We need knowledgable technologists who value privacy and competition at the helm of this enforcement, or it could easily backfire.
I haven't read the DMA text-is it vague, or non prescriptive?. There is a difference.
As an example: EU GDPR law was deliberately non prescriptive; the outcomes and rights were defined, but not the precise way to achieve them (i.e. Law said what, not how). That's smart flexibility and allows case law and detailed regulations to evolve with tech. Although it does make figuring out how to comply hard in early days