Category Archives: Big Tech

He generally is more measured in private conversations with the companies, said Katie Harbath, who worked at Facebook for more than a decade after joining as the first Republican employee in the companys Washington, D.C., office. Harbath left Facebook late last year. She said, off camera or out of earshot, McCarthy acknowledges that he rails against Big Tech due to pressure from his fellow members. But at the end of the day, I think he understands more than most that Facebooks got to do what theyve got to do, and hes got to do what hes got to do, and its all part of the political game of Washington, Harbath said.

Steve DelBianco, president and CEO of right-leaning tech trade group NetChoice, said McCarthys fundamental free-market instincts are still there. DelBianco added that he views McCarthys antagonism toward the Big Tech companies as nothing more than political messaging. McCarthy is reflecting what his caucus does to fundraise and motivate base voters, DelBianco said. NetChoice counts Amazon, Google and Facebook among its members.

Even some of McCarthys own colleagues dont think his heart is into his new, anti-Big Tech kick, noting, among other things, that hes opposed to the major bipartisan antitrust push that could effectively break up the tech giants. When POLITICO asked Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), the Republican leading that bipartisan antitrust push, about his thoughts on McCarthys anti-Big Tech rhetoric, Buck replied with a question of his own: Hes anti-Big Tech?

Allies of the GOP leader say that McCarthys extensive criticism in recent years is a manifestation of a party growing increasingly frustrated with large tech platforms a frustration fanned by former President Donald Trump, who has been booted off a few of those platforms. Even as he maintained that McCarthys position was not political, Matt Sparks, the congressmans spokesperson, said his boss viewpoint was at least in part derived from the sentiment among voters.

Our position today is simply a reflection of what our constituents are seeing and facing and feeling on the platforms, said Sparks, later adding that the GOP leader is not anti-technology.

McCarthy speaks with business executives to address concerns from fellow lawmakers and constituents, he said. And if someone with a personal connection to McCarthy who just happens to represent a Big Tech company dials up the congressman, hes going to pick up the phone, Sparks said.

There are a number of tech representatives with those connections. Frederic Barnes is a lobbyist at TikTok who worked for McCarthy. George Caram served as the congressmans senior legislative assistant for science, space and technology and now represents Apple. Brian Worth, former director of coalitions for McCarthy, lobbies for Amazon and Wing, a subsidiary of Googles parent company, Alphabet. Jeff Miller, a political adviser to McCarthy, also represents Apple and Amazon.

McCarthys relationship with the Big Tech companies was initially marked by public flattery and a mutually beneficial back-and-forth. Even during his time as a California state legislator in the early 2000s, McCarthy saw the potential of these companies as a force for good, Sparks said. On several occasions between 2011 and 2013, McCarthy led delegations of congressional Republicans on tours of the Silicon Valley campuses of Google and Facebook, even nabbing some face-to-face time with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign and PAC donations from Silicon Valley companies and tech executives over the course of his congressional career.

He had this goal of converting Silicon Valley to be more Republican, said one former House leadership staffer who worked under McCarthy and now represents several Big Tech companies. In his mind, those folks should have been supporting Republicans from a policy standpoint because business policy-wise, Republicans are better than Democrats for them for their businesses and innovation.

A video from 2012 shows McCarthy lavishing praise on Facebook and Twitter at their booths at the Republican National Convention.

At that time, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple were all powerful companies, but they hadnt yet become the powerhouses in the world economy that they are today. Facebooks market capitalization was $50 billion when McCarthy, flanked by former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and then-House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), participated in a public interview in 2011 at Facebooks headquarters with Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. Today, Facebooks market cap stands at roughly $932 billion.

But it wasnt just the economics of Silicon Valleys tech behemoths that initially drew Republicans like McCarthy. Republicans engaged with social media companies because there was something powerful about being able to communicate outside the bounds of legacy intermediaries like traditional media, said John Stipicevic, McCarthys former deputy chief of staff for floor operations and member services who is now a lobbyist for, among other clients, Microsoft.

Now those same companies are far different and, the way many GOP lawmakers in the House see it, are going into overdrive to silence and censor conservatives and anyone who thinks differently from their expansive liberal workforce, Stipicevic said.

The Republican position is simply a representation of their constituents' concerns, he continued. Leader McCarthy since his days as Majority Whip, has always had a pulse on the Conference. And it is pretty clear where most members are.

The allegation that major social media platforms were censoring conservative voices first began bubbling up as a conservative rallying cry in 2016, amid controversy over reports that Facebook employees intentionally suppressed articles from right-leaning news sources. Researchers have since shown that conservatives receive more engagement on social media than liberals.

McCarthy didnt jump into the anti-Big Tech fray until around 2018, when Google search results listed the ideology of the California Republican Party as Nazism during the primary. (Google blamed Wikipedia for the error.)

Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, said McCarthys thinking has evolved alongside the Republican Partys. A very short time ago, we saw a party that in too many instances put corporate interests at the top of their legislative agenda, Carr said. He pointed to McCarthys framework and the accompanying policy proposals from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, as an example of the party pivoting to respond to a changing tech industry.

If you go back to 2012, 2013, 2014, those Silicon Valley corporations did not have the massive power that they have today, and they certainly were not exercising the power they did have in a way that was so directly contrary to some of our core values in this country including free speech, Carr said.

The decisions that large corporations have chosen to make, in terms of putting their corporate interests so clearly in conflict with individual liberty, caused some real rethinking for a lot of people in the conservative space, said Carr, who has worked with McCarthys office on proposals to take on Big Tech. (Carr is married to McCarthys general counsel.)

The fervor against Silicon Valley on the right has only intensified since Twitter, Facebook and YouTube booted Trump from their platforms last year and followed by exiling several MAGA conservatives this year. Earlier this month, McCarthy called for paring back Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, social medias prized legal liability shield, after Twitter suspended Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greenes (R-Ga.) personal account.

Republicans have also objected to tech and telecom companies cooperation with the House Select Committee investigation of Jan. 6. Earlier this year, McCarthy threatened retribution for those companies, including Apple, who provide email or phone records to the committee.

"I think McCarthy's a very reasonable politician, said Republican lobbyist Sam Geduldig, who also represents, among other clients, Microsoft. Its not hard to figure out Kevin McCarthy. He cares about voters and the politicians that those voters elect.

Lobbyists for the Big Tech companies, however, say McCarthy is more open to hearing their perspective than his rhetoric indicates. Two lobbyists told POLITICO that, even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has entirely shut out Facebook from her offices, McCarthy will always take their calls and has assured them that he still respects the tech industry.

I don't think his public antagonism towards Big Tech should not be taken as being anti-tech, said one lobbyist who represents major tech companies.

Miller, one of McCarthys closest friends on K Street, riled up GOP lawmakers last year as he lobbied aggressively against a set of bipartisan trust-busting bills aimed at paring back the power of the techs behemoths. Miller is a registered lobbyist for both Apple and Amazon, two companies that the antitrust overhaul would directly affect. As Miller was lobbying against the package in Congress, McCarthy publicly announced his opposition to the bills.

In its place, McCarthy has proposed a narrower set of antitrust reforms, including proposals to expedite the court process with direct appeal to the Supreme Court in antitrust cases and to empower state attorneys general to lead the charge against the tech giants. But anti-monopoly advocates say that McCarthys ideas dont go far enough and would not change the law to account for the conduct of the largest tech firms.

They obviously dont want antitrust, said Matt Stoller, director of research for the left-leaning advocacy group American Economic Liberties Project. Thats their history, its their track record. They opposed the antitrust investigation of Big Tech, they oppose these laws. There literally is nothing to indicate that they want to do anything but protect Silicon Valley.

McCarthy has, instead, made it clear that he would prioritize speech issues, including paring back Section 230 for the largest social media platforms, if the GOP takes over power in the House.

McMorris-Rodgers and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, would play powerful roles in tech policy should Republicans take back control. And they say they are serious about enacting McCarthys framework.

Were focussed on winning back the majority we haven't done that yet, so I don't want to get ahead of things, Jordan told POLITICO in an interview. But if, Lord willing, we win it back, and Lord willing, I get to be chairman, well look at definitely Section 230.

I think overall Kevin's just done a great job of keeping the team together, Jordan said. And I think hes like, seeing like everyone else in the country, when you kick off a sitting member of Congress and the president something's got to change.

Buck, the Republican who is leading the bipartisan antitrust push in the House, was skeptical that changing Section 230 would rein in Big Techs power. At the same time, he observed that they are major political players and spend a lot of money in this town.

Big Tech wants changes to 230, Buck said. Thats not something theyre opposing."

See more here:

McCarthys love-hate relationship with Silicon Valley - POLITICO

In an article last February headlined Do Facebook, Twitter and YouTube censor conservatives? Claims not supported by the facts, new research says, USA Todays Jessica Guynn wrote, Despite repeated charges of anti-conservative bias from former President Donald Trump and other GOP critics, Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report out of New York University found.

Guynn quoted Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, who said: Republicans, or more broadly conservatives, have been spreading a form of disinformation on how theyre treated on social media. They complain theyre censored and suppressed but, not only is there not evidence to support that, what evidence exists actually cuts in the other direction.

In other words, conservative users of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram marinate in a state of paranoia, groundlessly convinced that their posts face restrictions, if not outright suppression.

Tell this to singer-songwriter John Ondrasik, to cite just one example, who on Jan. 2 posted his new music video critical of President Joe Bidens disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. YouTube first attached a warning that the videos images violated the platforms graphic content policy, making it unsuitable for younger audiences. But five days and 250,000 views later, YouTube removed it altogether. Nine hours later, when conservatives and, one hopes, others complained, YouTube restored it, although it added another warning labeling the video inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

About its abrupt takedown and restoration, YouTube explained: This was our mistake and weve reinstated your video. So sorry this happened and thanks for being patient while we worked this out. What was there to work out? As Ondrasik pointed out, a number of videos on YouTube displaying similar Taliban atrocities not only remain on the platform but are monetized, actually making money for whoever posted it.

When I ended my California gubernatorial campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom, my Twitter account stood shy of one million followers. Since then, and despite my increased notoriety for good or for ill my Twitter account has lost nearly 25,000 followers and continues to lose hundreds per day. By contrast, my accounts on Instagram and Facebook add hundreds of new followers each day.

This Elder Twitter erosion began before its founder and CEO Jack Dorsey resigned at the end of November 2021, replaced by Twitter executive Parag Agrawal. Agrawal tweeted in 2010: If they are not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists. Agrawal said he was merely quoting a comedian on The Daily Show. Still, not a good sign.

More concerning, Agrawal, in an interview in 2020, said: Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. He added: The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.

This is simply breathtaking reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation? As defined by whom? Of course, conservatives complain. But why the silence among the left, the ACLU types we once thought believed in the free flow of ideas and that the antidote to bad ideas is good ideas?

So what that Trump finds his social media platforms shut down because he rejected the results of the 2020 election. Silence, indeed, applause, from the left. So what that Hillary Clinton peddles conspiracy theories about the 2016 election, calls Trump illegitimate and the 2016 election stolen, yet faces no retaliation from Big Tech social media platforms. Silence, indeed, applause, from the left.

So much for the powerful quote by a biographer of French philosopher Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Welcome to big tech social media. Welcome to the silence of its allies from todays left.

Read more here:

Big Tech Thugs and Their Allies | Editorial Columns - Brunswick News

Canadians have been served a familiar dish of election promises aimed at taking on the American web giants. But our governments have demonstrated a knack for aggressive procrastination on this file.

A new initiative is providing a glimpse into Canadas revolving door with Big Tech, and as the clock ticks on the Liberal governments hundred-day promise to enact legislation, Canadians have 22 reasons to start asking tough questions.

The Regulatory Capture Lab a collaboration between FRIENDS (formerly Friends of Canadian Broadcasting) and the Centre for Digital Rights, with research from students in McMaster Universitys Master of Public Policy in Digital Society Program is shedding light on a carousel of unconstrained career moves between public policy teams at Big Tech firms and federal public offices.

Canadians should review this new resource and see for themselves the creeping links between the most powerful companies on earth and the institutions responsible for reining them in.

And theyd be wise to look soon. According to the Liberal government, a wave of tech-oriented policy is in formation, from updating the Broadcasting Act to forcing tech firms to pay for journalism that appears on their platforms.

But our work raises vital questions about all these proposals: are Canadians interests being served through these pieces of legislation? Has a slow creep of influence over public office put Big Tech in the drivers seat? These promises of regulation have been around for years, so, why is it taking so long to get on with it?

Cosy relations between Big Tech and those in public office in Canada have bubbled to the surface before, most notably through the work of Kevin Chan, the man for Meta (Facebook) in Canada. In 2020, the Star exposed Chans efforts to recruit senior analysts from within Canadian Heritage, the department leading the efforts to regulate social media giants, to work at Facebook.

It doesnt stop there. A 2021 story from The Logic revealed the scope of Chans enthusiasm in advancing the interests of his employer. Under Chans skilful direction, Facebook has managed to get its tendrils of influence into everything government offices, universities, even media outlets. And in so many instances, Chan has found willing participants across the aisle who offer up glowing statements about strategic partnerships with Facebook.

Facebook isnt alone in the revolving door. For some politicos, moving between Big Tech and public office appears to be the norm, in both directions. Big Tech public policy teams are filled with people who have worked in Liberal and Conservative offices, the PMO, Heritage and Finance ministries, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and more.

Conversely, some current senior public office holders are former Big Tech employees. Amazon, Google, Netflix, Huawei, Microsoft and Palantir are all connected through a revolving door with government. And this doesnt even begin to cover Big Techs soft-power activities in Canada, from academic partnerships, deals with journalism outlets (including this one), and even shared initiatives with government to save democracy. The connections are vast and deep.

So, why has tech regulation taken so long? Armed with the knowledge that so many of Canadas brightest public policy minds are moving between the offices of Big Tech and the halls of power in Ottawa, Canadians should be forgiven for jumping to conclusions. Or, maybe its just that simple?

That these employment moves are taking place in both directions is hardly surprising. But the fact that so little attention has been paid to this phenomenon is deeply troubling. And how can this power be held to account when our journalism outlets are left with little choice but to partner with Big Tech?

The Regulatory Capture Lab has pried opened the window on this situation, but others must jump in. Its time for Canadians to start asking tough questions. FRIENDS is ready to get the answers.

Clarification Jan. 17, 2022: The article was updated to reflect the research involvement of students from McMaster University with the Regulatory Capture Lab.

Liisa Ladouceur is general manager of FRIENDS.

Read this article:

Canada is sleepwalking into bed with Big Tech, as politicos float between firms and public office - Toronto Star

PHOTO:Jason Briscoe on Unsplash

Mark Warner has a different background than his colleagues in the Senate, one more common in Silicon Valley than Washingtons halls.

Before Virginians elected him U.S. Senator in 2008, and governor six years before that, Warner was a venture capitalist and entrepreneur. He co-founded Nextel, a wireless company now owned by Sprint, and invested in hundreds of startups. Today, hes worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

When I sat down with Sen. Warner for Big Technology Podcast, I wanted to learn why his colleagues talked a big game about regulating Big Tech but had done little so far. They risked losing credibility by persistently calling out tech executives and then sitting on their hands. And given Warners background, he was the perfect person to ask.

Our conversation covered familiar territory techno-optimism, tech illiteracy and lobbyists but then turned to stock trading. Members of Congress can trade individual companies stocks while professing to check their excesses, a stunning conflict of interest that pits their portfolios prospects against the countrys. The practice is commonplace, supported by party leadership, and may influence the legislative process. Warner said it should end.

Members ought to restrict themselves from playing in the market, he told me. If you take these jobs of responsibility, you have to be willing to give up something.

Warner is part of a broader awakening inside Congress around trading individual stocks, an issue that looms over the federal legislatures push to regulate Big Tech, and its relationship with big business overall. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, known as the Houses best trader, has long favored members being free to trade. But after years of acceptance, theres finally a movement inside the building to stop this legalized form of corruption.

Among stock traders, its common knowledge that you cant consistently beat the market if you dont have an edge. Firms that do it regularly tend to find themselves in hot water for insider trading, like Steven Cohens SAC Capital, or on top of a Ponzi scheme, like Bernie Madoff.

Then theres Congress. Federally elected legislators are often privy to the details of big-spending packages and potentially catastrophic events, like COVID-19, well before their constituents. They have an edge. Theyre not supposed to trade on that knowledge but wink wink they do.

There were members of Congress day trading from their congressional office, and day trading in large volumes, Brian Baird, a former member of Congress who served from 1999 to 2011, told me. The idea that, in no way, shape, or form did the knowledge acquired from their public servant role influence their trades it's just absurd. Human beings don't work that way.

Some of the most egregious stock trading in Congress occurred when several Senators dumped large volumes of stock in winter 2020, right after Congress was briefed on the magnitude of the COVID threat. Sen. Kelly Loeffler sold millions in stock. Her fellow Georgia Sen. David Purdue made a windfall by dumping and buying back stock. Sen. Richard Burr offloaded more than $1.6 million in stock ahead of the market crash (and then made a suspicious call to his brother-in-law, who promptly called a broker). Loeffler and Purdue lost their races, the Department of Justice investigated Burr, and the public became more attuned to their representatives trading habits.

Loeffler, Purdue and Burr disclosed their investments in compliance with the Stock Act, a law Baird originally introduced in 2006, which requires timely disclosure of trades by federal representatives. The law didnt prevent members of Congress and the Senate from trading individual stocks that seemed too aggressive at the time but it ensured the public would learn about their behavior. In that regard, it worked. Nobodys missing it now.

The ability to trade, and particularly on a day trade basis, even if youre not doing anything wrong, it looks bad, said Sen. Warner. He said he keeps his investments in a trust that doesnt buy individual stocks.

Today, momentum is building to finish the job Baird started. Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, who replaced Purdue in the Senate, introduced legislation this week along with Sen. Mark Kelly to ban members of Congress and their families from trading stocks. The bill would force them to put their assets in blind trusts. And if they violated the law, theyd be fined their entire salaries. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, after failing to unite with Ossoff, introduced his own stock trade ban for members of Congress. Bridging the gap between parties wont be easy, but the bipartisan interest is a radical change from just a few years ago, where such bans were inconceivable.

Nancy Pelosis argument for allowing stock trading is that federal representatives should not be restricted from participating in the economy. We are a free-market economy, she said in December. They should be able to participate in that.

But as Pelosis colleagues consider regulating the tech giants, her familys been trading their stocks. Last July, her husband Paul Pelosi made $5.3 million by exercising call options to buy shares of Alphabet. His transactions took place just a week before the House Judiciary Committee advanced its slew of antitrust bills aimed at Big Tech. The market didnt think much of the bills, sending Alphabets stock up, and Pelosi cashed in. The speaker has no involvement or prior knowledge of these transactions, Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill said at the time.

Congress can participate in a free market economy without this apparent conflict of interest. Putting their assets in blind trusts, as Ossoff proposed, would solve the problem while allowing them to participate in the market. Even limiting federal representatives to broad index funds would help. The S&P 500 returned nearly 27% in 2021, for instance, a fine result for anyone. Restricting members to more general funds could give them the market's upside, help them focus on the entire economy, and remove the temptation for impropriety.

As he leaned back in his chair in his Washington DC office, Sen. Warner, a seasoned investor, brought the point home. The stock pickers, you look at their averages against the actual returns of the market over the last five or ten years, and time and again picking a market-based fund is both cheaper and probably has a better return.

And that is exactly why Congress should limit itself to that option, unless it has something to hide.

Alex Kantrowitz is founder and reporter at Big Technology, author of "Always Day One: How the Tech Titans Plan to Stay on Top Forever," an on-air contributor at CNBC and former senior technology reporter at BuzzFeed News.

Read this article:

If Congress Is Serious About Regulation, They'll Stop Day Trading Stocks - CMSWire

Its possible the Jan. 6 committees latest subpoenas, sent to social media companies, pose an even greater threat to the GOP than the subpoenas leveled against Republican officials.

Thats because probing how insurrection-related information proliferated across large tech platforms, and examining the precision with which many users spoke about their plans for the insurrection, could dispel conservative claims that the attack was spontaneous, disorganized and trivial.

Probing how insurrection-related information proliferated across large tech platforms could dispel conservative claims that the attack was spontaneous, disorganized and trivial.

After receiving inadequate responses to prior requests for information, the committee sent subpoenas to Alphabet, Googles parent company; Meta, Facebooks parent company; Twitter and Reddit.

Two key questions for the Select Committee are how the spread of misinformation and violent extremism contributed to the violent attack on our democracy, and what steps if any social media companies took to prevent their platforms from being breeding grounds for radicalizing people to violence, committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in a statement on Thursday.

Its disappointing that after months of engagement, we still do not have the documents and information necessary to answer those basic questions, Thompson added.

Media outlets, including NBC News, have already detailed how much chatter online concerned conservatives multi-pronged plan to overturn the 2020 election. To some Republicans dismay, the committee wants to pull at that thread some more.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy already made clear he views a probe into social medias influence on the Jan. 6 insurrection as potentially damaging to his party. Back in August, he threatened any companies that comply with the investigation.

He wasnt alone in issuing threats. Several other conservatives in Congress issued similar warnings last year to any tech companies considering sharing information with the Jan. 6 committee.Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, R-Ga., went so far as to claim that companies that comply with the investigation will be shut down.

In other words, Republicans have been tipping their hand for months that they fear a probe into social media companies and the information insurrectionists may have shared online.

Thursdays subpoenas brought them one step closer to their nightmare scenario.

Ja'han Jones is The ReidOut Blog writer. He's a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include "Black Hair Defined" and the "Black Obituary Project."

Read the original here:

Jan. 6 committees big tech subpoenas might be the GOP's biggest threat - MSNBC

The House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol has ordered several social media firms to hand over data relating to the attack, a significant step toward transparency that could have broader privacy implications.

The committee on Thursday subpoenaed Twitter, Meta, Alphabet and Reddit for private messages exchanged on the platforms about the attack as well as information regarding moderation policies that allowed communities to remain online even as they incited violence in early 2021.

Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said the committee was seeking to answer two key questions: how the spread of misinformation contributed to the violent attack, and what steps social media companies took to prevent their platforms from being breeding grounds for radicalizing people to violence.

The subpoenas mark an escalation in the committees efforts to get answers from the tech companies. Thompson added in his letter that the subpoenas came after months of engagement with the firms and that the four companies had so far ignored requests for information.

We cannot allow our important work to be delayed any further, he said.

The panel in August asked 15 tech companies, including the four subpoenaed on Thursday as well as TikTok, Snapchat, Parler and 4chan, for records related to the riot.

In letters sent this week to the tech firms, Thompson lamented their lack of response. In a letter to Metas CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, Thompson said that despite repeated and specific requests for documents related to Facebooks practices on election misinformation and violent content, the committee had still not received these materials.

Meta said in a statement that it planned to produce the documents requested. Reddit also told the Guardian it had received the subpoena and planned to comply with the requests. Twitter declined to comment. Google did not respond to request for comment.

As Chairman Thompson said recently, Facebook is working with [the committee] to provide the necessary information we requested. Since then, Meta has produced documents to the committee on a schedule committee staff requested and we will continue to do so.

Following the January 6 attack, social media platforms have been scrutinized for amplifying calls to violence, spreading misinformation and serving as an organizing tool for the rioters.

Last March, lawmakers grilled the CEOs of Google, Twitter and Facebook about the platforms role in the Capitol riot. And in the months since, the major platforms have all announced initiatives to curb the spread of misinformation through their products.

But still, much about the content moderation policies of major tech firms remains black box, with executives slow to reveal details of how misinformation and hate speech is moderated and how many resources are dedicated to mitigating such issues. Now, increased transparency could come by means of subpoena.

For lawmakers, the problem came even more acutely into focus with papers leaked by the whistleblower Frances Haugen in October 2021, which showed how Facebook failed to enforce policies that would rein in hate speech because they were detrimental to its bottom line. Speaking to Congress, Haugen called for more transparency from Facebook and other companies, including an independent oversight board.

In a letter to Zuckerberg, the select committee cited revelations from Haugen, requesting access to the companys internal analyses of the spread of misinformation and calls to violence relating to the 2020 election.

In particular, the committee requested more information on the Stop the Steal movement and how it was regulated. A Stop the Steal Facebook group amassed hundreds of thousands of members and was used to coordinate some of the actions on January 6. While Facebook eventually took it down, other related pages stayed online, said Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

It is absolutely crucial to understand the decision making process that led to them to leave those pages online how they executed enforcement of their policies against violence, encouraging violence, intimidation, extremism and hate.

Similarly, Reddit has been requested to provide information on its community r/The_Donald. That group was banned from Reddit in June 2020, but its community migrated to another platform where many actions of January 6 were planned.

Lawmakers were also seeking materials from Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube, because the video platform hosted significant communications by key players in the Capitol attack, including Trumps former chief strategist Steve Bannon and rioters livestreaming their movements on January 6.

Activists say the need to hold companies accountable for how their policies contributed to the Capitol riots should be held in balance with civil rights and privacy protections.

The subpoenas may bring up privacy concerns, said Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future. Forcing companies to hand over private messages of its users could have major privacy implications, Greer said.

Its essential to remember that government surveillance and demands for data from private companies are primarily weaponized against marginalized communities, they said. The white supremacists who stormed the Capitol deserve to be held accountable, but we should never cheer on expansions of surveillance or government overreach.

View post:

Breeding grounds for radicalization: Capitol attack panel signals loss of patience with big tech - The Guardian

from the there-goes-that-plan dept

Karl recently wrote about how Congress' antitrust efforts are flailing (even with the plan to hold a hearing on Senators Klobuchar & Grassley's antitrust bill) and one reason why the efforts have stumbled may be Senator Josh Hawley's decision to really show off his fascist side.

We've been pointing out the serious problems with Hawley and his policy ideas since long before January 6th of 2021. Even though it was fairly clear from early on that his hypocritical posturing and populism were little more than a cynical attempt to get the Trumpian base to back his massive ego and ambition for a potential Presidential run, a bunch of Democrats were happy to cynically embrace Hawley because he was "anti-big tech" and willing to hate all the same people that some Democratic Senators hated as well. Of course, January 6th and Hawley's now infamous raised fist appear to have resulted in Democrats realizing that even if he hates Mark Zuckerberg too, that doesn't mean he's worth working with.

Now the Washington Post has noted that since January 6th, Democrats suddenly were no longer willing to partner with Hawley on bills that regulate "big tech," which is a bit of a problem, since he was their Republican co-sponsor on a variety of "bipartisan" legislation.

By this time last Congress in January 2020, Hawley had partnered with Democrats to lead at least eight letters on tech issues, including with Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), then the Senate minority whip, according to a review by The Technology 202. The topics spanned from data privacy to kids online safety to potential risks posed by tech firms with links to China.

But a year into this Congress, during which his top issues have only gained prominence, Hawley hasnt led any bipartisan letters on tech policy issues that his office has publicly released, according to a review. All of the new tech bills hes introduced this past year have been either a solo or Republican-only effort. And of those four bills he co-led early last Congress, only one has been reintroduced without him on it.

The article claims that this means that Hawley's "once-glowing prominence in the debate has faded," though I question that premise. He's still out there bashing tech in stupid, nonsensical ways. He's just doing it on Fox News and to an increasingly ignorant base who still thinks that he can magically ignore the 1st Amendment and force Twitter to allow idiots to spew nonsense. The fact that he can't actually advance any legislation is kind of meaningless here. Possibly (and this is good) it slows some of the legislation down, but Hawley has never been interested in actually passing legislation in the first place. It was always about getting his name in lights among the right people. And he got his headlines from Democrats who were willing to look the other way on Hawley's populist/fascist tendencies when it was politically convenient for them. And now Hawley doesn't need them any more to get the kind of headlines he needs.

The real thing for me is looking at just how cynical Democrats were to join up with Hawley on this prior to last January 6th. It was no secret -- certainly not in and around the Senate -- about Hawley's populist/fascist views, and his willingness to stomp all over principles or rights to feed his ambition. But they were willing to do so because it helped them out. It's good that they're apparently no longer willing to team up with Hawley to give him any kind of legislative "win" on this topic, but it remains ridiculous that they were ever willing to do so in the past -- back before Hawley was so commonly and publicly associated with the insurrection.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, bipartisanship, josh hawley

See more here:

Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist - Techdirt

To train for their famous 1969 mission to the moon, astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins spent time in the lunarlike deserts of the American West.

One day, they ran into an elderly Native American man. He recognized them from TV and asked them for a favor.

My tribe believes sacred spirits live on the moon, he said. Could you give them a message for us?

The astronauts agreed. So, the man had them memorize a phrase in his native language. When they asked him what it meant, he demurred: Its a secret between our tribe and the moon spirits.

What happened next was one of the most poignant skirmishes in the age-old war between past and future, natives and colonizers, tradition and technology. That conflict is a bit like the one were currently waging with the large tech companies.

You know: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter and so on.

We let them into our lives, which they promised to make better. They did, sort of. But, they also stole our privacy, poisoned our politics, wasted our time, degraded our human interactions and messed with the minds of our children. Meanwhile, these electronic pirates have made fortunes off our personal information and their skill in addicting us to their products and services.

In a rare show of bipartisan comity, our elected and appointed leaders seem to be awakening to the problem. Congress has held hours of hearings and introduced dozens of bills over the past year to protect us from these invaders. The measures would strengthen privacy protections and strip social media companies of their protection from legal liability for the harm they cause.

That latter privilege was accorded them by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The loophole allows websites to be treated as common carriers, like a phone company routing calls obliviously, instead of as self-interested gatekeepers crafting algorithms to determine who sees what online and selling microscopically targeted advertising to accompany that content.

To protect young people from such intrusive behavior, Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey has introduced an update of the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act, which he helped craft in 1998. The new version would spare kids from targeted advertising, stiffen security standards on electronic devices marketed to them and include an eraser button to eliminate kids personal info at will.

Another tool for taming Big Tech is antitrust law. The House Judiciary Committee has finished work on six bills that would help prevent tech companies from using their monopoly power to maximize profits and smother competition.

The courts have become the latest antitrust battleground. A federal judge this week allowed a Federal Trade Commission suit against Facebook to move forward. The FTC alleges that the company, which controls 70 percent of the daily social media market (98 percent among desktop users), has maintained its position by buying up potential competitors. Google, which has more than 80 percent of the market for internet search and 90 percent for Android app sales, is facing three antitrust suits over its treatment of competitors.

Encouraging as those efforts may be, chances of success are slim. The tech industry now accounts for more than one-third of the total U.S. economy. Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google alone are worth more than $7 trillion, bigger than the gross domestic product of any country in the world, except the U.S and China.

That kind of money buys a lot of lawyers, lobbyists and, alas, politicians. Tech executives are among the biggest contributors to political campaigns, and getting bigger. Not surprisingly, hardly any of the bills introduced in Congress are expected to be debated, let alone passed. Even the FTC suits are considered by many legal experts to be long shots, partly because of the plaintiffs impressive array of top-drawer lawyers.

This mismatch in firepower reminds us of what happened to Native Americans when the white man first arrived on this continent, with his superior wealth and technology. The locals never had a chance.

The old geezer who confronted Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins in the desert clearly knew his history.

When the astronauts returned to their base that day, they searched for an expert who understood the mans language. They finally found one and repeated the words theyd memorized. The translator burst out laughing. Then he told them the meaning of that message:

Dont believe a single word these white men tell you. Theyve come to steal your land.

Donald Morrison is an Eagle columnist and co-chairman of the advisory board. The opinions expressed by columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of The Berkshire Eagle.

See the original post here:

Donald Morrison: Is Congress ready for the war against Big Tech and big money like Facebook and Google? - Berkshire Eagle

With regulators around the world looking at reining in Big Tech, the companies in the crosshairs are increasingly eager to point out their rivals' sins.

Why it matters: Investigations in the U.S. and around the world are targeting Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon. To make their case, regulators need to show the companies are squelching competition a task the tech companies may be aiding with their infighting.

Driving the news: An increasing part of each company's game plan seems to be to try to shift the spotlight and hope that regulators will put their limited time and resources against some other target.

Yes, but: All the finger-pointing to protect individual companies' interests could just further blemish the entire industry in the court of public opinion.

Between the lines: Industries that face a concerted threat from Washington often band together and send their trade groups into the fray to represent them as a united front.

The big picture: The government's campaign to limit Big Tech's power faces a big challenge in going after many targets at once, each of which has a different approach and grip on the market.

Meanwhile, the tech giants are collectively frustrated at legislative proposals that take aim at them but exclude both foreign tech companies and other corporate giants, such as Walmart.

Original post:

Tech giants play the blame game - Axios

The European Commission is moving fast on legislation that would change how tech giants operate in the digital marketplace.

The proposed Digital Markets Act (DMA), introduced in 2020, specifically targets the practices of "gatekeeper online platforms." Governments, including the U.S., use the term gatekeepers to describe the power that companies like Apple, Google and Amazon have over third parties that use their platforms. The Digital Markets Act was introduced alongside the Digital Services Act (DSA), complementary legislation that aims to protect users online by providing transparency into how content algorithms work.

The DMA removes the ability of tech giants to enact a preference toward their products and keep users from connecting to third parties outside their platforms. The DMA would also allow users to remove any preinstalled apps on their phones.

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, will likely pass the DMA and DSA sometime before July, according to Cdric O, France's minister for digital and telecommunications. If passed this year, the legislation will be implemented in 2023 and will be applied across the EU.

"The DMA is about updating our conventional antitrust rules in order to adapt to the digital world, and the DSA is about content moderation," O said during a webinar presented by the Atlantic Council, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C. "Within 18 months, Europe would have been able to propose, negotiate and adopt two of the most important texts in the history of the internet."

The DMA still needs significant work for it to be effective legislation, said Marshall Van Alstyne, professor of information systems at Boston University's Questrom School of Business.

The goals of the DMA -- to create fairness and competition -- are good ones, Van Alstyne said. However, he said the DMA is missing one essential goal: to create value.

Van Alstyne said the premise behind the DMA is the belief that market concentration is too high, making the markets less competitive, and too much of the wealth is being appropriated by large firms and not shared equitably across users and smaller firms in the digital ecosystem.

By making value the goal, "you might actually get better policy," he said.

One of the DMA policies that prevents value creation is the inability to combine data sources without explicit user opt-in, which makes it harder to create network effects. Network effects is the concept that a product or service's value increases as the number of people using that product or service increases.

One example is COVID-19 tracing, he said. "You can't really do effective COVID tracing if everyone has to explicitly go opt-in. You can't create good networks in that context."

Another is the DMA's proposed restricting of tech giants' abilities to make acquisitions. According to the DMA proposal, online platforms identified as gatekeepers would be required to report intended mergers or acquisitions to the European Commission.

While some mergers or acquisitions are problematic and should be stopped or challenged, Van Alstyne said not all mergers are bad. Indeed, large companies acquiring smaller firms can set those larger firms up to be competitors to other large firms, he said.

If you simply stop at 'the big platforms can't do this,' that's a problem. Marshall Van AlstyneProfessor, Boston University

"If you simply stop at 'the big platforms can't do this,' that's a problem," he said.

The DMA is specific on what activities big tech companies can and can't engage in, which may create issues down the road as the tech environment changes since it's not as adaptable, he said.

Van Alstyne said one of the first areas the DMA gets right is elimination of most-favored nation clauses.

Oftentimes, when large platforms contract with third parties to let them sell on their platforms, the contract terms stipulate that the third parties must offer their products at prices as good as or better than other platforms with which the third parties may do business.

Van Alsytne said that makes it hard for third parties operating on the platform to offer better prices even on their own websites.

"It makes it very hard for them to do better, and it makes the platform monopolistic," he said.

Other valuable pieces of the DMA include potentially including a concept called in situ data rights. In situ data rights gives users the power to keep their data in one location, such as Facebook, and determine what third-party companies can access that data.

Van Alstyne said providing users with in situ data rights addresses issues created by legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation, which entrenched data with companies like Facebook and Google under privacy protections.

"Startups could access the data without having to remove it from its original location, they could just get API permission and start to access large quantities of it in location," he said. "So you should be able to combine more data sets with users' permission to create more value, to create more of the network effects."

Makenzie Holland is a news writer covering big tech and federal regulation. Prior to joining TechTarget, she was a general reporter for the Wilmington StarNews and a crime and education reporter at the Wabash Plain Dealer.

See the article here:

EU closes in on regulating big tech with Digital Markets Act - TechTarget