Comment by Ruphin
2 days ago
Why would big tech be in favor of having to scan message content? It puts more regulatory requirements in place on their activities. Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations?
If big tech _wanted_ to they could already backdoor their encryption and scan the message content, they don't need regulation to do that. The only thing that changes with regulation is that they now _have_ to, which cannot possibly be in their favor.
It's confusing because of the indirection.
The Internet Watch Foundation is one of these NGOs that makes lists of hashed child porn images and URLs. All the big tech companies subscribe so they can coordinate on blocking child porn, as they are legally required to do.
Unfortunately the IWF is also a "charity" and thus engages in political lobbying. Because like all such NGOs they have a single purpose, they lobby for making that purpose easier irregardless of other costs, which they view as out of scope. It's obviously easier to watch the internet if tech firms are forced to watch everything all the time, so that's what they're in favour of.
People actually working at tech firms on messaging systems don't want to do this, however. So they end up funding people who are undermining their own policies. This is very common whenever NGOs get involved e.g. governments funding NGOs that directly undermine the government's own efforts.
The fix would be for tech firms to leave the IWF and set up their own alternative organization that doesn't engage in lobbying activity. However, that would require a lot of cross-org agility that is difficult for big companies to achieve even internally, let alone across the industry, and the leadership is all thinking about AI anyway not EU stuff where they already just assume the EU is going to regulate them all the death anyway. So inertia carries the day.
> Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations?
Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it.
Also without chat control they would have to follow much stricter eprivacy directive laws that makes many of their monetisation strategies ilegal.
It's briliant really... instead of trying to dismantle privacy regulations you push for new regulation that overrides them and make data mining users even mandatory.
I get why this might be a thing, but scanning E2EE messages? Big tech invested a lot in making E2EE happen.
Apple is wholly against Chat Control.
Where did you get that impression? The main driver for Chat Control 2.0 is lobby org Internet Watch Foundation where Apple one of the main donors (along with Meta, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI)
2 replies →
That is regulatory capture but it really feels like it should be called something else.
If the laws are designed to directly benefit it makes sense like with the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate to the point of killing a few hundred people. This feels more like bureaucratic capture or some other name, where the entity must be so large to interact.
It has the same effect and you are not wrong, I just wish it was clearer.
I cannot imagine Musk simply submitting to this sort of EU demand, and he has enough hue-and-cry capability on X to maneuver other tech firms into very uncomfortable positions in the same regard.
Dream on. X corp is one of the sponsors of Internet Watch Foundation who are the lobby group behind Chat Control. Musk might play how terrible this is for his audience but in reality they sell all the user data and train their models on it just like every other big tech corp.
You're implying that X is not scanning, or ever planning to scan, private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion?
lol He'll put on a show and then cave-in like he always does: https://people.com/elon-musk-says-he-didnt-do-nazi-salute-at...
Blud thinks musk has any principles, he is literally grifting for maga to stop immigration and then goes and facilitates h1b when there are plenty of talented workers that could be hired.
That guy is outright cheerleading fascists in European countries and wants to put them in power. Why would he want to take away such a powerful tool from them?
2 replies →
L, and I cannot stress this enough, OL
Regulation is a good thing for big, established incumbents who can afford expensive lawyers. It keeps them safe from competition.
I think this is basically correct and aligns with Facebook’s massive push toward e2ee in Messenger. They don’t want to be on the hook, and didn’t do e2ee just for the fun of it
Why? To know more to train AI and sell your info to third parties. To spearhead ads to you.
Why an earth would a big tech company say no to gather more info on its users? Show me the first one
Because regulation (even well meaning regulation) always favors incumbents and hinders startups.
[dead]