Facebook faces regulation. But what kind?
During Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s ballyhooed two days of congressional testimony last week, two things quickly became clear: One, Congress is interested in regulating Facebook, and two, it is woefully unprepared for the task.
But Facebook — along with Google and Apple — have become so powerful, and user privacy so compromised, that lawmakers have no choice. They must educate themselves, and fast, before these giants become uncontrollable. Facebook’s drive to vacuum up data and conquer the online market is relentless.
Most members of Congress who questioned Zuckerberg on Tuesday and Wednesday showed themselves to be just as clueless about the potential privacy dangers as most of the 68 percent of American adults who have Facebook accounts.
In the hearing Tuesday, Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., got closest to the heart of the matter. Durbin got Zuckerberg to admit he’d prefer not to disclose personal information such as the hotel he stayed in the night before and to whom he’d sent messages — information that Facebook routinely collects from its users. Graham suggested that Facebook was a monopoly and had spent a lot of money buying out its competition. The government traditionally regulates monopolies, he warned. Zuckerberg responded, “I think the real question … is what’s the right regulation? Not whether there should be or not.”
With something called the Honest Ads Act, Congress would require Facebook to disclose, as broadcasters must, who pays for political ads. With the proposed Consent Act introduced last week, Congress would require Facebook users to explicitly consent to having personal information shared with third parties. The Federal Trade Commission would enforce the rules.
Zuckerberg would rather Facebook police itself and voluntarily enforce disclosure rules similar to those in the Honest Ads Act. In Europe, it supports consent rules similar to those proposed in Congress. In principle, Zuckerberg said, he’d support the same rules in the United States, “but details matter a lot.”
Some tech experts believe the simplest and most effective way to address the issue would be to impose a fiduciary responsibility on internet companies to act in the user’s best interests. States could do this on their own, with courts deciding when ethical requirements have been breached.
Congress is a dysfunctional place these days. A complicated subject like internet regulation might be beyond its abilities. So perhaps the simplest solution is best, and quickest.
Year after year, study after study has come to the same depressing conclusion: Women are paid less than men in most every occupation, from accounting to teaching to sales to nursing. In the 55 years since the federal Equal Pay Act was passed, the gap has shrunk a bit, but it’s still far too wide. In 1963, working women were paid, on average, 59 cents for every dollar paid to a man. It’s now about 80 cents on the dollar, and substantially less for women of color. The gap exists even in fields in which women vastly outnumber men, like secretarial work and grade school teaching.
It’s no great mystery how and why this gap came to exist, but it is unfair and dispiriting nonetheless. Well into the technologically enlightened 21st century, some prehistoric attitudes about the value of women’s work persist and are reflected in their collective pay. It’s wrong, but deeply held societal beliefs are hard to shake and structural inequities are difficult to rectify. That’s why we are heartened by the disruptive promise of a recent decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that bars employers from considering a new worker’s prior salary when deciding what to pay him or her.
The ruling came in the case of a California woman who sued the Fresno County Office of Education when she found out her salary was $13,000 less than that of a man with less experience and education hired for the same job. Her employers argued that the disparity was not discriminatory because her lower salary was based on the fact that she had earned less in her last job, not on her gender. The court disagreed, adding (in an opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who died in late March) that “to allow employers to capitalize on the persistence of the wage gap and perpetuate that gap ad infinitum — would be contrary to the text and history of the Equal Pay Act, and would vitiate the very purpose for which the Act stands.”
It’s a broad interpretation, to be sure. Even some of the concurring justices worried that Reinhardt’s absolute ban on considering prior salary was too broad, though they agreed with his larger point. But there’s certainly something to his logic. Discrimination is baked deeply into our system, and because past pay often is determinative of future pay, women underpaid in the past often continue to be paid less for the rest of their careers. Interrupt this pattern, and you have a better chance of stopping it before another century passes. The ruling applies only to the nine states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction, but it likely will have a ripple effect across the nation, where concerns about the wage gap already have spurred a handful of states and cities — California among them — to adopt laws banning employers from asking about pay history. More states have considered similar proposals.
Businesses that employ people have been understandably wary of adding another subject to the list of topics that are verboten to ask about in the application process. This includes asking job applicants their race, religion or gender identity, or other personal information such as their sex or whether they are pregnant, unless is it relevant to the job they are seeking. The California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups opposed California’s law, AB 168, which went into effect in January, on the grounds that employers often seek past wage history for legitimate, nondiscriminatory purposes. For one thing, the chamber argued, employers don’t always know what the going market salary is for a particular job; for another, past wage history can help a company determine whether the potential employee’s salary expectations far exceed what it can offer.
But the benefits of the law outweigh those concerns. Besides, industry trade groups regularly produce salary surveys for employers in their fields. And the California law still allows employers to ask an applicant about their salary expectations — what they hope or expect to earn in the job for which they’re applying. Pay inequity doesn’t only harm women. It also harms people of color. And it’s a matter of simple fairness too. Two people with the same amount of job experience and the same skills who do the same job equally well should be paid roughly the same amount, regardless of what they used to earn or what their race or gender is.
Everyone can be hurt by a system that bases compensation not on skill level, experience or industry standards but on what they were paid at their last job.
Email letters to the editor to romenewstribune@RN-T.com or submit them to the Rome News-Tribune, 305 E. Sixth Ave., Rome, GA 30162.
Please limit letters to 250-300 words in length. Be sure to include a daytime telephone number so the letter can be verified. All letters are subject to editing.
Published mornings daily at 305 E. Sixth Ave., Rome, GA 30161 by Times-Journal Inc. Publishing. Carrier delivered, monthly $19.99, three months $56.97, six months $107.95, yearly $203.90 (plus sales tax) paid in advance. Mail rates on request. Periodical postage paid at Rome, Ga. Want Ads, 706-290-5300; other departments, 706-291-6397. (POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Rome News-Tribune, P.O. Box 1633, Rome, GA 30162-1633.)