“Could,” “might,” “could,” “could,” “could,” could," “could,” “might,” “could,” “may,” “might,” “could,” “may,” “might,” “could,” “may,” “could,” “if.”
Most of the statement is pure conjecture and fearmongering, frankly. Big Tech companies already have a good idea, both technologically and legally, how they’ll continue providing exactly (or nearly) the same service while complying with potential new regulations. In large part their empires will just become more sprawling, with more subsidiaries to isolate the tech and legal liabilities, and more “Do you authorize…?” prompts to click through.
The only part of the statement that I agree with is that “updating technology regulations in areas like privacy, AI, and protections for kids and families could provide real benefits.” Where I disagree is their implication that the latter is mutually exclusive of or should co-opt the former, or that the former harms or hinders the latter.
Suck it up, Google.