Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a different matter.
> Both are separated subjects. The article is talking about content consumption and how algorithms would be controlled with this law. Government tracking is a different matter.
They aren't separate, in fact in the case of regulations, the subjects are deeply intertwined with each other: The introduction of "allowed algorithms" is a clear sign that the government in question has a vested interest in controlling the information feeds of their population.
Slippery slope be damned, it creates a path for the government to say:
"Hey, we want you to use this algorithm instead & set it as the default: Nothing suspicious, just use it. ;)"
Even if the algorithm in question is just "sort by newest", the fact that a body of control is exerting influence on which algorithms are allowed & what is the default algorithm to be used sets a precedence of control that results in more power being sent to the government: Don't like the algorithms being used? Have the government solve it!
Governments tends to hoard information, they just store everything they can for "future references". Later on the process they can use some types of algorithm to dig and cross information for a target or whatever, but is a different matter. Nobody is going to say "ok track me, but don't use an algorithm" that would be the lesser problem, obviously the tracking is the issue there. As I said before, is a different discussion.
