Notices by Joanna Bryson, blathering (j2bryson@mastodon.social), page 2

A speaker disagrees, thinks it's the social media that has been a conduit to news for decades. But now the means of production are owned by the same people making generativeAI. Musk wiped out twitter's misinformation people and simultaneously created grok. So this is fundamentally a different landscape than even 12-18 months ago. Speaker change: these debates happens every time there's a new media. The "toxic destabilising undertaingy" person is unfortunately more charismatic as a speaker.

Now we're hearing about the #DSA (as we should, #AIAct is not as big a deal for elections. Companies that own AI, and social networks, also they have a profile on everyone. They not only target advertisements but also content to you [if you use recommenders, which I think you must on tiktok and can't on mastodon]. Negative gets a lot of reach which means ltos of rightwing crap. And these phenomena interact. German foreign office found misinfo twitter bot from Russia took ages to get it down.

We can now change this, we could ban microtargetting. THe #DSA kind of half bans it, all kinds of things you can't target on “sensitive" data but as usual can guess that from insensitive data like where you live. Big problem need #antitrust and #competition because only tech control the advertising. [#DMA] Germany unfortunately keeps talking about literacy, she sides with the “it's all power" [Wrong. Recognising truth is not recognising image manipulation, it's recognising reliable sources.]

India it's really sad, people lose lives, don't just shout at each other.

We haven't seen culture controlled by 8 people before.

OK, we're on to q&a now. I asked why can't we teach people about recognising a valid source, someone said it was the same as watermarks, the source can be faked. I don't see that, URLs, newspapers, channels – seems to rest on the assumption we just find every story floating in the æther with some kind of tag we won't believe on it?

A speaker shows that non private data e.g. use product purchases or favourite entertainers. Another speaker talks about not wanting to be censored by big tech, we cannot make infrastructure do our work for us. Good reason to exempt platforms for the news. Someone says Facebook chose to promote negative stuff, it wasn't just the people's clicks it was preemptive. "Varieties of Democracy" says autocrising raises with toxic polarisation is not economics but hate speech [wrong] what autocrises.

Attending a Bosch event in my area, for a change I’m not on the panel. Oh interesting, not only is Kate Crawford on the panel, but Microsoft just donated a lot of $$ to "Germany’s” (& through that the EU’s) AI. The event is Chatham Rule, so I can't say who says what. Other people on teh panel: Alexandra Geese, Jeanettte Hofmann Pradnya Bivalkar. Someone thinks there's an espistiemic domcratic crisis because no one can tell what's true. Why this is more true of AI than human liars I have no idea.

Yet another speaker mistquotes the speaker I liked to say that trad media can counter social media, then says none of it has money so they all need clickbait, money only comes mediated via google and facebook. The previous speaker agrees with funding issue for media, but that’s not the same as ascribing power to AI. Says the problem is kids these days not reading legacy media so how do we create a sound media landscape that reaches out.

Another speaker: the impact of disinformation is entirely dependent on whether there are good media. The problem in countries including the US where politicians and major media promote disinformation, they are just using misinformation as an identity flag [I've been writing about this for years too! Well, mostly blogging, but some forthcoming science finally, yeah.] I love this speaker, they’re pointing out the fear of new media & manipulation in printing press & photography.

Is it me or is there more traffic on Mastodon now that Bluesky is no longer invite only? Maybe I've settled down now more on it being properly the replacement for @j2blather@twitter

Cass-Gottlieb: child privacy, data purchasing. iRobot was the first loss / failure for Amazon mergers, this is a sea change. It's not just the individual cases, it sends messages across the board. #antitrust

CC courts next!

Marc Van Der Woude: CC so you heard about these shifts, how do you think judges & courts are perceiving this [I had dinner next to him yesterday, he was wondering why he got a philosophical question, I told him :-)]

Der Woude: judges listen, that's their job.

Valletti also defines AI as genAI. The #AIAct has been well and truly disrupted in these economists heads anyway. #antitrust

Cass-Gottlieb: individual cases take a long time but can have huge impacts, rattles off a bunch of successful FTC cases -- pesticides, hospitals, farmer etc. these have huge implications. "when I said we should challenge farm mergers people looked at me like I had 15 heads", now they also block vertical mergers, with bipartisan support. Facerec, auto purchase

now Gina Cass-Gottlieb tells us Australia is also on this. They are also getting increased market concentration. Acquisitions are disproportionately made by the largest 1% of firms, who make more than half of all acquisitions. Good to have the reminder that antitrust is about the entire market, I hope Mundt is listening, but the AIA & DSA are NOT about #antitrust, they are about making sure AI products are safe (AIA) and that digital services do not manipulate users (DSA).

Marcus Smith: er thanks for having us but Marc & I are like christians thrown to the lions here. CC in intro: you've had a lot of work to do, the UK CMA has been really aggressive [yay Karen Croxson!]

Marcus says he agrees with Marc, courts can in argument make intervention, it's a waste NOT to interject what is troubling the court, to get the parties to explain. [so sounds like he somewhat disagrees with Marc :-)]

Der Woude: the level of the prohibition: effects based, but the courts are becoming very reluctant -- taken over by alliance/hungary, football cases, everything shifts from the facts to the ?? [off mic]
There is resistance at the level of the national authorities. Do we trust them or the EC?
[Sorry, I can't really follow him]
The DMA is typical of the block things we had in the 1980s, now everything is forbidden that is not explicitly allowed. These are all 3 hard changes. #antitrust

Der Woude: basically since 2003 we haven't seen any decisions also at national courts we can't apply article 5 article 1 paragraph 3 we don't need to be generous... No exemption policy. Now a similar trend under article 102.

Third phase starting this year. There is an enforcement problem, it is clear our procedures are not fit, perfectly aware in Germany, these are 19C rules. You mentioned Meta, I think the people in the Intel case are dead [before it was decided? people laugh] #antitrust

Der Woude: we only say whether something is within the law, it's different than the US, we are politically passive [I'm not sure it's as different as he thinks between US & EU, which I argued with him about it] It's only the parties who can prevail. The EU system is less adversarial, the judge cannot create a finding, only choose or certify one brought to them. So change must also be slow for judges, they are supposed to maintain the rule of law, can't be changed overnight. [what about new law?]

Zucman: money made in India or US is being taxed in IE & LX, about HALF of evasion is being done with EUROPEAN tax havens(!!!!) Though now he talks about Bermuda Google & Alphabet booked several hundred BILLION in Bermuda, where tax rate is 0%. #antitrust #power #corruption #inequality it's a global problem across countries and sectors. Hard to quantify, but likely contributes to the market concentration. Easier to do with best lawyers. This is a deep failure of enforcement.

CC is very happy about all the mention of power. What are the disfunctions that power inflicts on economies? #antitrust

Isabella Weber: prices were stable, TOO stable, how could we have been in a world of immense corporate power?

Gabriel Zucman: you can't talk about #antitrust or power without talking about tax. In US the effective corporate tax rate GLOBALLY for US companies has declined from 50 to 20 %, a lot by evasion, though some by democratic choice, but a LOT by evasion, tax havens.

Smith 2: constraints, which make markets work DIFFERENTLY, like minimum wage. But that's all there is, policy isn't a thing, I don't consider books. Law is applied to fact, and facts are characterised by law, and this is where experts come in. Developing economic understanding on the part of the court goes hand in hand in what is received from expert economists. [OK I understood this part :-)] Economists often articulate facts from scratch, assume courts know nothing–inefficient. #antitrust

Smith: So to what extent should a court listen to new policy, though he thinks anyway he heard people say it's all same old same old. But anyway courts shouldn't listen to policy. the role of the market, and how it should operate is at the heart of competition law, so the role of the market implies two important legal classifications, which are ideological. 1: laws needed to make the market work (no market is free, always need contract law, property, money, persons, facultative!) #antitrust