alternatehistory.com
Sanders Administration- Spring 2019
Spring 2019
"Looks like the European Union is also moving toward dealing with Big Tech..."
"Unsurprising that Russia under Putin is doing this and it's a reminder of balance..."
"Well, ain't this a bit complicated, isn't it...?"
Technology has grown by leaps and bounds, being one of the bedrock cornerstones for the 21st century regarding culture and the economy. It has led to a colossal explosion of information sharing, communications and the empowerment of the people. At the same time, there was a dark shadow cast over it. Namely, in addressing the economic rammifications of these technological behemoths. While the Gore administration executed the Clinton administration's work in splitting Microsoft after the ruling in 1999 and helped accelerate the development and adoption of the Internet, not much progress was made in oversight barring security and even then, it was in a somewhat blunt and crude matter. However, with the progressive movement in full swing, Big Tech would have to deal with rammifications for their oversights and corrupt decisions.vEurope’s antitrust regulators slapped Google with a large fine over in March for the third time in less than two years, ordering the tech giant to pay 1.49 billion euros ($1.7 billion) for freezing out rivals in the online advertising business. The ruling brings to nearly $10 billion the fines imposed against Google by the European Union. And it comes at a time when big tech companies around the world are facing increasing regulatory pressure and fierce political attacks over privacy violations, online misinformation, and other abuses. Instances such as the Facebook information debacle and dealing with Amazon. Though many noted that it would not cause much problem for them because of the billions of dollars made by Google's parent company Alphabet, though this did get the attention of the Sanders Administration to further examine this.
European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager says Google broke the law for roughly 10 years by restricting how business partners deal with rivals in search advertising.
At the same time, this did not mean that the Internet nor its major players should be viewed as antagonsitic. Perhaps to counterbalance this view or action against Google, which is viewed by sympathetic, the world shifted its eyes over to Russia. President Vladimir Putin in late April signed into law a "sovereign internet" bill which will allow Russian authorities to isolate the country's internet, a move decried by rights groups. The measures include creating technology to monitor internet routing and to steer Russian internet traffic away from foreign servers, claiming to prevent a foreign country from shutting it down. While Russian lawmakers insist the new law is necessary to ensure the security of Russia's online networks, critics have responded that the vaguely worded bill gives new censorship powers to government monitors. While the effect will be seen in November, discussions have gone underway and the discussions of the suprantional internet against the national state have begun. Separately, Putin earlier in March signed controversial laws that allow courts to fine and briefly jail people for showing disrespect towards authorities. As such, while the previous case showed the iomportance of reigning in certain aspects of the internet, this current one reinforced the tantamount importance to a free internet, unrestrained by national agendas or the whims of autocratic state rulers. Some have even begun potentially how to potentially work around the servers issue and the idea of "block chains" and peer-to-peer networks.
Putin looking over outline of the law
However, beyond the controversy over some long-needed examinations of the macro level rammifications of the Internet, a course case within the United States has gotten some interest. Bucklew v. Precythe. A United States Supreme Court case regarding the standards for challenging methods of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Namely, that the idea of a painful execution would be considered "cruel and unusual". However, precedent was cited through Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross and that it governed all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain. The specific as-applied challenge to the Eighth Amendment (that lethal injection would cause extreme pain due to a rare medical condition) did not meet these previous tests according to one side. On the other side though, it was that argued that Bucklew had sufficiently demonstrated that death by lethal injection could cause unnecessary intense pain and an "excruciating and grotesque" execution due to his conditions, and in his as-applied challenge, that death by nitrogen gas met the standards for Baze and Glossip. While Missouri did not use this method, it was in use in three other states. A seperate opinion was written by Sonia Sotomayor, urging that there is no reason to rush execution sentences, particularly to avoid having any judicial mistakes harm the impact of the Constitution. The debate raging on left open alot of questions in general over the nature of the Death Penalty in general.
"Looks like the European Union is also moving toward dealing with Big Tech..."
"Unsurprising that Russia under Putin is doing this and it's a reminder of balance..."
"Well, ain't this a bit complicated, isn't it...?"
Technology has grown by leaps and bounds, being one of the bedrock cornerstones for the 21st century regarding culture and the economy. It has led to a colossal explosion of information sharing, communications and the empowerment of the people. At the same time, there was a dark shadow cast over it. Namely, in addressing the economic rammifications of these technological behemoths. While the Gore administration executed the Clinton administration's work in splitting Microsoft after the ruling in 1999 and helped accelerate the development and adoption of the Internet, not much progress was made in oversight barring security and even then, it was in a somewhat blunt and crude matter. However, with the progressive movement in full swing, Big Tech would have to deal with rammifications for their oversights and corrupt decisions.vEurope’s antitrust regulators slapped Google with a large fine over in March for the third time in less than two years, ordering the tech giant to pay 1.49 billion euros ($1.7 billion) for freezing out rivals in the online advertising business. The ruling brings to nearly $10 billion the fines imposed against Google by the European Union. And it comes at a time when big tech companies around the world are facing increasing regulatory pressure and fierce political attacks over privacy violations, online misinformation, and other abuses. Instances such as the Facebook information debacle and dealing with Amazon. Though many noted that it would not cause much problem for them because of the billions of dollars made by Google's parent company Alphabet, though this did get the attention of the Sanders Administration to further examine this.
European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager says Google broke the law for roughly 10 years by restricting how business partners deal with rivals in search advertising.
At the same time, this did not mean that the Internet nor its major players should be viewed as antagonsitic. Perhaps to counterbalance this view or action against Google, which is viewed by sympathetic, the world shifted its eyes over to Russia. President Vladimir Putin in late April signed into law a "sovereign internet" bill which will allow Russian authorities to isolate the country's internet, a move decried by rights groups. The measures include creating technology to monitor internet routing and to steer Russian internet traffic away from foreign servers, claiming to prevent a foreign country from shutting it down. While Russian lawmakers insist the new law is necessary to ensure the security of Russia's online networks, critics have responded that the vaguely worded bill gives new censorship powers to government monitors. While the effect will be seen in November, discussions have gone underway and the discussions of the suprantional internet against the national state have begun. Separately, Putin earlier in March signed controversial laws that allow courts to fine and briefly jail people for showing disrespect towards authorities. As such, while the previous case showed the iomportance of reigning in certain aspects of the internet, this current one reinforced the tantamount importance to a free internet, unrestrained by national agendas or the whims of autocratic state rulers. Some have even begun potentially how to potentially work around the servers issue and the idea of "block chains" and peer-to-peer networks.
Putin looking over outline of the law
However, beyond the controversy over some long-needed examinations of the macro level rammifications of the Internet, a course case within the United States has gotten some interest. Bucklew v. Precythe. A United States Supreme Court case regarding the standards for challenging methods of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Namely, that the idea of a painful execution would be considered "cruel and unusual". However, precedent was cited through Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross and that it governed all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain. The specific as-applied challenge to the Eighth Amendment (that lethal injection would cause extreme pain due to a rare medical condition) did not meet these previous tests according to one side. On the other side though, it was that argued that Bucklew had sufficiently demonstrated that death by lethal injection could cause unnecessary intense pain and an "excruciating and grotesque" execution due to his conditions, and in his as-applied challenge, that death by nitrogen gas met the standards for Baze and Glossip. While Missouri did not use this method, it was in use in three other states. A seperate opinion was written by Sonia Sotomayor, urging that there is no reason to rush execution sentences, particularly to avoid having any judicial mistakes harm the impact of the Constitution. The debate raging on left open alot of questions in general over the nature of the Death Penalty in general.
- CountDVB
- Word Count: 830