In our previous post, we noted that Mark Hyman recently used a “bait and switch” argumentative tactic, praising the Trump administration’s official ending of obsolete Y2K regulations as a way of implying the wisdom of Trump in going after all manner of consumer protections.
Hyman’s recent commentary on internet privacy is a logical follow up on this. In it, he argues that rules protecting consumer privacy and confidentiality regarding their online information were rightfully quashed by the Trump administration since they were unnecessary.
Key to his argument was that these protections were unfair because they applied only to telecommunications companies (i.e. internet providers) but didn’t apply to online services such as Google and Facebook. The federal agency charged with enforcing these new rules was the FCC, which, Hyman charged, was “playing favorites.”
It’s almost unnecessary to counter Hyman’s argument here since former FCC chairman Michael Copps has already done so in a clear, cogent piece for the Chicago Tribune.
The upshot is that virtually no actual consumers want their data to be put up for sale by and to internet providers; this is a move strictly to appease big telecommunications companies with deep pockets. What’s more, contra Hyman, it’s not a matter of the FCC “playing favorites.” It’s a matter of what regulatory agency oversees these issues, and that’s important.
Right now, it’s the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that oversees Google, Facebook, etc. It’s the FCC that oversees internet providers. It wasn’t that the FCC was playing favorites; it was that the FCC had jurisdiction over one set of players, the FTC over another.
What the new conservative chair of the FCC, Ajit Pai, wants is to give oversight of internet providers to the FTC. This would have significant ramifications for consumer rights and protection and would endanger the concept of “net neutrality”—that all users and data on the internet should be treated equally. Indeed, this move would allow, not stop, the issue of “playing favorites,” with giant corporations able to garner sweeter deals for themselves at the expense of individuals. But again, read Copps’s piece on this—it’s short and to the point.
But something that ought to be added is the relationship between one of the prime movers behind this elimination of privacy rights, the aforementioned Mr. Pai, and Sinclair Broadcasting. It is none too surprising that Hyman would be advocating for a position favored by Pai. Pai is a crucial Sinclair Broadcasting ally in its drive to buy yet more media outlets. Indeed, Sinclair has wined and dined Mr. Pai at posh hotels.
And, of course, this creates a rather unholy trinity of quid-pro-quo among the chair of the FCC, Sinclair Broadcasting, and Donald Trump, with each one doing solids for the others, despite the fact that none of it is in the interest of consumers.
This, in and of itself, does not negate Hyman’s argument. To assume that it does would be to commit a logical fallacy oneself. However, it does suggest that one ought not trust Hyman to level with his viewers on this issue, and as we’ve seen, he does not.
No comments:
Post a Comment