Wow - while I sympathize with their goals, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works. They need to restrict and govern corporate entities, not the Internet itself.
I haven’t read the book but as far as I gather they aren’t proposing to restrict the internet as it is, but rather make digital rights for consumers to be able to control and own the data that is given to third parties.
So Google for instance can’t say like “we’ll give you this for free but you have to give us your data”. Instead, you’d probably need to pay directly for Gmail for instance or Google would have to pay you for access to your data. Either option might be better than what we have today.
Wow - while I sympathize with their goals, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works. They need to restrict and govern corporate entities, not the Internet itself.
I haven’t read the book but as far as I gather they aren’t proposing to restrict the internet as it is, but rather make digital rights for consumers to be able to control and own the data that is given to third parties.
So Google for instance can’t say like “we’ll give you this for free but you have to give us your data”. Instead, you’d probably need to pay directly for Gmail for instance or Google would have to pay you for access to your data. Either option might be better than what we have today.
If you pay $1 for Gmail, and Google pays you $1 for your data, isn’t that equivalent to where we are today?
There’s the issue of consent
It’s either or, not both at the same time.