It's in the public interest for legislators to consider those views alongside the views of the general public. Unfortunately the latter does not have the resources to lobby as effectively as Microsoft does…
This is the exactly sort of scenario where lobbying is important. “Privacy” sounds good in the abstract. It’s like “think of the children.” Who could be against more privacy? But what’s going to be the impact on local businesses? On the products people buy?
How so? You seem to be just repeating the common narrative in US, which isn't based in any factual data.
I hear you say: 'the voice of the people is heard at election time'. This would be the case if the very same lobbyist didn't fund the campaigns of politicians.
If money can buy influence in policy making, that is textbook corruption.
The other part to this is that the current (American) political system is built on top of this form of corruption, it is an integral part. I would draw a parallel to the Brazilian political system, which simply couldn't function without the corruption it is built upon. Of course the American case isn't as bad, but nor is it particularly good.
It's a semantics game.
Yes, but that requires that people know about the legislation and care enough to be involved, and it is unlikely that they'll be more willing than Microsoft will because it will affect them significantly less.
> The EU created a heavy handed data privacy law because it would be American companies that would feel most of the compliance burden.
It turns out that American companies are disproportionally affected because there are more large American companies, which means the law will target them more. That's like saying the U.S. should drop out of environmental agreements because they'll hurt our local industry more–it's not taking into account the fact that it's our own companies disproportionately causing the problem the legislation is trying to solve.
> “Privacy” sounds good in the abstract. It’s like “think of the children.”
"Think of the children" tends to lead to mass surveillance and a degradation of liberties, while calls for "privacy" lead to…Facebook earning less money? Where are you trying to take this argument?
Aren’t those reasons to weigh the company’s views more heavily?
> It turns out that American companies are disproportionally affected because there are more large American companies, which means the law will target them more. That's like saying the U.S. should drop out of environmental agreements because they'll hurt our local industry more–it's not taking into account the fact that it's our own companies disproportionately causing the problem the legislation is trying to solve.
It certainly would be prudent for legislators to be more cautious about environmental legislation that could affect major domestic employers. The cost benefit (the potential gain from a cleaner environment versus the potential loss from reduced economic activity) is different for the US than for other countries.
> "Think of the children" tends to lead to mass surveillance and a degradation of liberties, while calls for "privacy" lead to…Facebook earning less money? Where are you trying to take this argument?
For both things, the benefits are widely appreciated while the costs necessarily are not. It’s entirely appropriate for companies to come in and say “hey, this law sounds great but is going to put additional burdens on companies that are out of proportion to the benefits.” Legislators must of course balance the resulting input, but the process of providing that input is not corruption.
As to Facebook making less money, that is a cost that must be considered. A huge fraction of the fancy coffee and avocado toast industry is bankrolled by Facebook money. If the benefits from increased privacy don’t outweigh the losses to companies like Facebook, the law is a bad one.
No. Coming back to the environmental (which is decent metaphor, I think), a company which dumps into the local river is going to fight tooth and nail against any regulation that stops them from doing this because it might have a significant effect on their bottom line, while for most people this will not be enough for them to care to get involved because the harm is difficult to measure individually and hard to conceptualize (but, over the entire population, has significant detrimental effects). This shouldn’t mean that the government should weigh corporate concerns more heavily.
> The cost benefit (the potential gain from a cleaner environment versus the potential loss from reduced economic activity) is different for the US than for other countries.
Well, of course it is: it depends on which countries have business that rely on their negative externalities not catching up to them.
> Legislators must of course balance the resulting input
The problem is that the input legislators get is from a source that is strongly biased towards viewpoints that have a lot riding on the laws being put in place, which is generally not the people you want to be listening to for a fair, balanced opinion.
> If the benefits from increased privacy don’t outweigh the losses to companies like Facebook, the law is a bad one.
This is highly dependent on which group you are looking at. From Facebook’s perspective, most privacy laws are bad for them, while from their user’s perspective most privacy laws are probably good. The issue is that the latter group is being left out when this consideration is made, or at least is not well represented.