Reason First: Has the Government Broken Mark Zuckerberg?
The new Wizard of Menlo Park senses that regulations would revolutionize the Web for the better. Is he right?
It’s a shame to see one of the youngest, brightest minds in charge stoop to a level of a pushover. Residue from the pressure that Congress issued out against Mr. Mark Zuckerberg drove him to pen his latest missive outlining why the government needs to regulate the Internet.
Just like highways and byways, school systems, and healthcare providers, what does Mr. Zuckerberg think will happen to the Web once the government wraps its claws around it? Already, there exist thousands of dilapidated roadways. Scores of students find school boring and unchallenging as a result of the state’s vicious involvement. There are lists of patients who will never get the care that they need because of government interference in this sector of the economy. All of these systems show that regulations and the government sticking its nose where it need not have lead to catastrophe. The state is a necessary good for protecting individual rights. The agencies which it employs to carry out this role are the police; to safeguard citizens from force or fraud in the homeland; the military, to preserve peace by way of launching missions against foreign aggressors; and the law courts to handle legal disputes in a rational manner.
That’s it. For these three functions of the government, if practiced consistently and without fail, the government runs morally. But what many like Mr. Zuckerberg fail to admit is that government doing anything outside of protecting individual rights is evil. For the internet to run like the abysmal government systems like infrastructure, education and healthcare would devastate the way that the world functions. Mr. Zuckerberg wants to know “how regulation can help.” It first can get the hell out of his way and other internet mavens in Silicon Alley, Prairie, Valley, and all other locations where the most productive minds help to run the current digital realm. To “update the rules” on the internet would mean to restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens the world over. If there is an issue where pornography, acts of brute force, or any other unwanted entity finds its way on sites like Facebook, it is only the government’s job to shield the creator(s) and managers of the site to remove such content.
A government bureaucrat who doesn’t know a terabyte from a terrible nightmare does not need to step in as an enforcer and ruin the internet. Where Mr. Zuckerberg errs is when he feels that people shouldn’t have to rely on private companies to foster safe spaces for users on a particular site.
Zuckerberg, much like many others who view Europe as possessing the right idea agrees with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation which is just a clumsy gathering of letters and sounds which basically says that the state controls all data that internet companies possess. This foul arrangement excites Mr. Zuckerberg and has driven him to side with the regulators despite the obvious, insidious harm that this would cause in America and other countries and continents. All that a regulator will do is gum up the system, sit back and count taxpayer dollars, and revel at the “power” that he or she would wield.
Mr. Zuckerberg didn’t create Facebook, initially, to have government busybodies looking over his shoulders and those of his executives, engineers, and other specialists. Unregulated markets, including cyberspace are what drive minds to invent and innovate on a grand scale.
Mr. Zuckerberg wouldn’t be worth over 60 billion dollars if the current government thugs had their way. They would put caps on the abilities for CEOs like Mr. Zuckerberg to produce great fortunes. The only solution to the problem is for the United States government remain, by and large, hands off of the internet.