@ISIDEWITHQuestionsTechnologicalStarted 10mos agoActive 8hrs ago

Should the government mandate that large tech companies share their algorithms with regulators?

Algorithms used by tech companies, such as those that recommend content or filter information, are often proprietary and closely guarded secrets. Proponents argue that transparency would prevent abuses and ensure fair practices. Opponents argue that it would harm business confidentiality and competitive advantage.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 47.8k Canada voters.

60%
Yes
40%
No
60%
Yes
40%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 47.8k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 47.8k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B2WVT6Ffrom Ontario  answered…4wks4W

i'm unsure as i don't properly understand the ramifications of too much or too little government oversight with tech

 @9SSRG9Hfrom Manitoba  answered…6mos6MO

Yes but only if it is in the best interest of the public to do so. For things such as healthcare and financial education.

 @B2BXZ8Jfrom Alberta  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only if those algorithms are kept confidential between the tech company and the regulator(s)

 @B3SNJ3Qanswered…8hrs8H

No, but companies who violate privacy and data laws should be mandated to share their algorithms if they are in gross violation as a penalty.

 @B3DQ7BNfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

No, but they should detail what the algorithm does and why it does what it does. They do not need to give away the code or trade secret, but they must show outcomes on a repeatable basis to prove function is not malicious.

 @9T35CHWfrom British Columbia  answered…6mos6MO

No; I suspect that if we ask for this, companies will simply block Canadian use like they did for news content.

 @9SZHZL3from Alberta  answered…6mos6MO

Tech companies are allowed to share generalized algorithms with regulators but not individual/personal ones

 @B387D5Qfrom Alberta  answered…2wks2W

there should be some for of oversigth coity to makr sure then no wantom abuse of public or privet data farming for corpret greed and malicius use of ai

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Social Media Regulation” news articles, updated frequently.

 @Vot3rVo1ceChloefrom Ohio  submitted…3mos3MO

Trump meeting TikTok CEO as ban deadline looms

US President-elect Donald Trump is meeting the CEO of TikTok as the social media giant fights plans to have it banned in the US.Trump was due to meet Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Monday, the BBC's US partner CBS News reports, citing sources familiar with the meeting.A law passed earlier this year means TikTok will be banned unless it is sold by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, before 19 January.The company has made an emergency application to the US Supreme Court to have the ban delayed.The US wants TikTok sold or banned because of alleged links between ByteDance and the Chinese state, links that both TikTok and ByteDance have always denied.The bill introducing the law said it was intended to "protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications".Trump opposes the ban - despite supporting one during his first term - partly on the grounds that it could help Facebook, which he has accused of aiding his 2020 election loss.Trump's second term, however, won't begin until he is inaugurated on 20 January, the day after the deadline set out in the law.In its filing to the Supreme Court, submitted on Monday, TikTok asked for a "modest delay" to the enforcement of the ban to "create breathing room" for a review by the Court and to allow the incoming administration to "evaluate this matter".It described TikTok as "one of the most significant speech platforms" in the US and said the ban would do "immediate irreparable harm" to the company and its users.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies