The EU is concentrating first on cleaning its own house: collectively it constitutes the world’s second-largest economy.īut EU policymakers know that the reach and complexity of cyber businesses, especially the richest and most powerful among them, mean that successful regulation, and indeed the very future of the Internet, will likely hinge on the two other leading economic powers, China and America. The aim? To keep 21st-century technology tools from violating users’ privacy, safety, and other individual rights or from being used to undermine elections, democratic institutions, or communal and social trust. intelligence agencies.īut this was just the latest signal from the 27-nation European Union of its growing determination to take the lead in broader regulation of cyberspace. This week’s case was about privacy: the European Data Protection Board ruled that when it moved European users’ content to the United States, Facebook was failing to ensure it wouldn’t be shared with U.S. It is that cyberspace should have been regulated earlier. One lesson that governments have learned from their current efforts to regulate the Internet could yet encourage greater transatlantic cooperation. Europe’s new Digital Services Act obliges two-dozen very large players to provide an annual account on how they are combating disinformation, threats to safety, and election manipulation, among other ills. prefers to leave businesses to regulate themselves, the EU has less trust in them. But there is little sign of a common transatlantic approach to the issue. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Washington share many of Europe’s concerns about an uncontrolled, artificial intelligence-powered internet. But China is clearly not interested in joining such an international effort, which leaves the EU and United States. prefers voluntary action by businesses over Brussels’ legal prescriptions.Ĭyber businesses are global, which means rules and regulations should be too. And that takes a lot of work. Today’s lead story, as arduous as it was, is an attempt to do that – to understand an important part of America just a little bit better, to help open the door to progress for all.Įurope is seeking a joint approach with Washington to regulate cyberspace, but the U.S. Finding answers will be impossible without understanding those deeper forces.
The roots of violence everywhere are as much mental as political, influenced by culture and values. But that same rule applies to all regions – in the U.S. To ensure he got the story right, Patrik went back a second time. What we found was a portrait not of policies or legislative bills, but of an underlying mental landscape and how that has led to higher rates of violence.
Why?In traveling to Nashville, Tennessee, and Alexander City, Alabama, Noah Robertson and Patrik Jonsson sought to show different faces of violence in the South, in large cities and rural hamlets, without falling into stereotypes or shallow narratives. And within these trends, one sticks out for its clarity and constancy: The American South has dramatically higher levels of violence. There is no single “gun violence problem” in the United States, but different challenges in different places. Rather, it is a product of the subject: the roots of violence. American conversations about gun violence – particularly mass shootings – often revolve around gun laws and mental health.But the closer we looked, the more we saw something else. Today’s lead article was not one of those stories. That’s not criticism. An idea emerges, and with a minimum of fuss, it is done. Sometimes, a story comes together with kinetic beauty.
0 kommentar(er)
