In a major move by some Democrats to rein in big tech platforms, Sen. Mark Warner has come out with a policy paper with a list of fixes to some of the recent tech-related conundrums.

The policy paper, published Monday by Axios, covers three main issues: combating disinformation, protecting user privacy and promoting competition in tech.

The spread of disinformation, or “fake news,” could be lessened if platforms made some ethical changes, the paper states, adding: “Platforms have perverse incentives to not to take inauthentic account creation seriously.”

The reason is user growth and advertising revenue. Even though Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. have cracked down on fake accounts of late, Warner (pictured) believes more should be done.

New legislation, the paper says, should be put in place to ensure platforms maintain a thorough policing of inauthentic accounts, many of those automated bots. If that doesn’t happen, the paper contends, the Federal Trade Commission should step in and apply sanctions.

Moreover, platforms that don’t take down misleading content should be held to “defamation, invasion of privacy, false light, and public disclosure of private facts.” The paper asks for an amendment of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from prosecution when content is posted by users.

The paper asks that platforms should face sanctions if removed content, doctored in some way, is uploaded again after a victim has won a judgment. The paper does add, though, that platforms should be able to distinguish such doctored content from satire.

Much like the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation rules, Warner’s office says, tech companies should give consumers more protection of their data. That means notification of how it’s being used, asking for consent if it is used, access to all data collected and the ability to delete it all.

The paper also discusses algorithm bias, saying a company’s algorithms should be audited lest user data be unfairly discriminated against. Consumers should know exactly how their data is judged, it says.

“Legislation could require companies to more granularly alert consumers to the ways in which their data is being used, counterparties it was being shared with, and what each user’s data was worth to the platform,” says the paper. It states that users should be informed about what their data was worth in cash to the platform. This mirrors what tech philosopher Jaron Lanier said in his book, “Who Owns the Future?” If it’s free, you pay in another way, the saying goes, and Warner wants consumers to know what their data is worth, though that’s difficult to determine because the context makes a big difference.

Still, the paper emphasizes the need for users to be savvier regarding what happens to their data. On top of that, says the paper, we need to get serious about teaching media literacy, in particular how information is consumed. Consumers need to be taught to be skeptical, or at least discerning. “It’s not enough for social media companies or the tech community to simply give lip service to building long-term resiliency and media literacy without taking some much more significant short-term steps in addressing the threat we face in the here and now.”

That’s the gist of the paper: Consumers should wise up, and tech companies – mostly social media – should be more transparent and improve their moderation. That’s starting to happen, but Warner’s policies appear intended to extend and cement the fledgling efforts.

Photo: U.S. Department of Education/Flickr