Letters to the Editor: Tech giants must be regulated
'The main stakeholders responsible for implementing effective policies to protect children from the harmful impact of marketing should be trusted public authorities.' Picture: iStock
The column 'Richard Hogan: For too long, social media operated outside the law, and our children have sufferedâ (June 5) spoke of the launch of the Online Safety Codes by CoimisiĂșn na MeĂĄn, noting: âWe need robust legislation to protect children and to end the era of self-regulation of âbig techâ.â
But one issue that seems to be glossed over in the discourse on the codes is that while we look to end the self-regulation of âbig techâ, we are simultaneously risking leaving the regulation of large swathes of the content children do see to self-regulatory industry bodies.
While the regulation of harmful and illegal content is welcome, we cannot forget that children are exposed to large volumes of harmful online ads â junk food and alcohol for example. There is concern that CoimisiĂșn na MeĂĄn will allow the Advertising Standards Authority â an industry-funded body that self regulates its own membersâ adverts â to become the nominated body to police online ads to children.
Also, in an era where there is more concern about how ads are being served to children, i.e. the frequency and the data collection aspect, we cannot rely on a body that will only react to complaints, presumably from parents. But by the very nature of these ads, parents will not see them as they appear fleetingly in feeds, gone again as soon as they are seen, but nevertheless implanted on the impressionable young brains.
Why are we being left in a paradoxical situation where we set up a regulator who may ultimately outsource this regulation to a self-regulatory body? The main stakeholders responsible for implementing effective policies to protect children from the harmful impact of marketing should be trusted public authorities, as the bearers of a duty to protect childrenâs rights and public health.
We shouldnât be afraid to go further than ending the self-regulation of big tech in our calls for protecting children â letâs take self-regulatory processes out of the mix altogether.
The outcome of the European and local elections suggests that the next government will again be anchored around a Fine Gael/Fianna FĂĄil construct.Â
However, there is a very real danger that this time the other component(s) would be further to the right. Such a combination would threaten such progress as has been made towards a more socially (though unfortunately not economically), fair and equal society.
Labour and the Social Democrats can prevent such a regression and further a progressive agenda by combining to develop a âcommon platform of the constructive leftâ, prioritising public provision in housing, health, and caring, as well as peoplesâ rights at work in an environmentally sustainable vibrant mixed economy. They should also promote the realisation of a 32-county Shared Ireland on the basis of consensus rather than a sectarian head count. A merger between them is not necessary, but it is imperative to present the electorate with a viable centre-left alternative to the dominance of the three parties of the nationalist tradition.
Such a platform could attract others on the independent left and would be capable of gaining sufficient DĂĄil support to hold the centre of the ring, ensuring an economically and socially progressive public policy direction.
The interests of the people of all the 32 counties of Ireland must take priority over short term manoeuvring for advantage, which clearly isnât even delivering from that narrow perspective.
The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has said that loose budgetary policies could overheat the economy and it has urged the government to show restraint.The latest fiscal assessment report focuses on the governmentâs medium term plans as set out in the April stability programme.
This is not the first time that the Government has been accused of âfiscal gimmickryâ and the council is adamant that our current budgetary policy is not suitable for the economy or the public finances.Â
It seems to me that there has always been this tension between the Irish Fiscal Council and the government. The council are the watchdogs who are there to look at what we are planning for and how we are going to organise same apropos to achieving our fiscal targets.
Presently, the economy is doing really well and its at or above capacity. There is high employment in the country.
However, what the council is now saying is: that this is not the time for loose budgetary policy ,because such behaviour will lead to overheating. The council also advises that this is not a time that one can get great value for money on capital spends so maybe some of the choices that we have to be made suggests that we canât do everything now. The council is positing the notion that this is not a do everything now kinda of moment.
The councilâs report shows that the government is not going to heed their message because they are projecting future deficits, if you exclude some taxation and if you include excess taxation.
The council has also warned about our reliance on corporation tax. A lot of our income tax revenue comes from very high earners who earn those very high incomes in the exact same places that provide us with our very high corporation taxes and letâs not forget we are very dependant on that sector.
The late 18th-century Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke once uttered the following words which I find apposite to the above: âPrudence is not only the first in rank of the virtues political and moral, but she is the director and regulator, the standard of them all.â
Do the projected local election results suggest that many voters were âShinner furiousâ, rather than âShinner curiousâ?
Much misunderstanding abounds about the issue of neutrality in Ireland.
Ireland is a sovereign nation within the EU. Nowhere in Bunreacht na hĂireann is there a commitment not to defend ourselves! Neutrality is not enshrined in the constitution.
The much vaunted âtriple lockâ is a safety valve, not an impenetrable shield. In 2024, facing fundamental issues that affect our independence and status, Ireland , I suggest, must take meaningful measures to allow ourselves to play a realistic role in our own future.
John Atkinson wonders how the Government intends to manage 703 âcommunication channelsâ as outlined in its âstrategy policy on biomethaneâ. (Letters, June 5).
I wonder indeed. It was reported last week that Minister Eamon Ryan was telling the Cabinet that many Irish towns and cities âwill have to be protected against rising sea levelsâ, and future housing stock âmay have to be adapted for extremes of heat and coldâ.
I take this to mean the Irish Government Cabinet, and not the âcabinetâ of an early learning centre, or primary school? If the Government âCabinetâ are not aware of these issues by now, why waste time reporting this level of âcommunicationâ?
The free school book scheme exemplifies the unintended consequences of well-meaning initiatives. This scheme has driven independent family businesses out of operation or placed them under significant financial strain. These businesses are important in small/medium sized towns which are already struggling considering the proliferation of online shopping.
It is particularly disappointing coming from the Fine Gael party, which has traditionally positioned itself as the party of commerce and SMEs.
