>Lifes are at stake there.
>Lifes are at stake there. That's another good justification for regulation. Banks, and publicly traded companies are also heavily regulated. 90% of people will only ever use Google search. To them Google is the internet. Google has just as much power to harm just as many people as a bank does. We regulate the bank to avoid potential financial harm, why can't we regulate Google? >As long as there is no indication of abuse concerning Google's algorithm, which is what we were talking about, I believe said algorithm isn't any government's business. That's the point, without any way to audit Google, there is no way to know they aren't abusing their position in ways that are difficult to detect. When a company has amassed as much power as Google has, I think it's perfectly acceptable to shift the burden of proof to them instead of taking them at their word--force a bit of transparency (without requiring them to release trade secrets to their competitors.)
Posted by learc83 on Apr 19, 2015, 12:38 AM
Tags
Related issues
- Previously you had a few choices, go with: 1.
- Some impressions: I am interested, the single payment is a big plus.
- Well the biggest problem seems to be that the billing from the health provider doesn't sync up with insurance.
- One possible solution is cognitive screening - the use of tests such as the Wonderlic, SAT/ACT, or Wechsler to find prospective empl...
- Names and addresses are extremely difficult to verify as spelling, abbreviations, etc.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.7,000 issues0 comments
ux (FinTech)
Previously you had a few choices, go with: 1.
Some impressions: I am interested, the single payment is a big plus.
Well the biggest problem seems to be that the billing from the health provider doesn't sync up with insurance.
One possible solution is cognitive screening - the use of tests such as the Wonderlic, SAT/ACT, or Wechsler to find prospective empl...
Names and addresses are extremely difficult to verify as spelling, abbreviations, etc.
>Lifes are at stake there.
>Lifes are at stake there.
>Lifes are at stake there. That's another good justification for regulation. Banks, and publicly traded companies are also heavily regulated. 90% of people will only ever use Google search. To them Google is the internet. Google has just as much power to harm just as many people as a bank does. We regulate the bank to avoid potential financial harm, why can't we regulate Google? >As long as there is no indication of abuse concerning Google's algorithm, which is what we were talking about, I believe said algorithm isn't any government's business. That's the point, without any way to audit Google, there is no way to know they aren't abusing their position in ways that are difficult to detect. When a company has amassed as much power as Google has, I think it's perfectly acceptable to shift the burden of proof to them instead of taking them at their word--force a bit of transparency (without requiring them to release trade secrets to their competitors.)
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.