The GOP Knows That The Dem's Antitrust Efforts Have A Content Moderation Trojan Horse; Why Don't The Dems?
Getting played like a fiddle.
(Image via Getty)
Last summer, I believe we were among the first to highlight that the various antitrust bills proposed by mainly Democratic elected officials in DC included an incredibly dangerous trojan horse that would aid Republicans in their “playing the victim” desire to force websites to host their disinformation and propaganda. The key issue is that many of the bills included a bar on self-preferencing a large company’s own services against competitors. The supporters of these bills claimed it was to prevent, say, an Apple from blocking a competing mapping service while promoting Apple Maps, or Google from blocking a competing shopping service, while pushing Google’s local search results.
But the language was so broad, and so poorly thought out, that it would create a massive headache for content moderation more broadly — because the language could just as easily be used to say that, for example, Amazon couldn’t kick Parler off it’s service, or Google couldn’t refuse to allow Gab’s app in its app store. You would have thought that after raising this issue, the Democratic sponsors of these bills would fix the language. They have not. Bizarrely, they’ve continued to issue more bills in both the House and the Senate with similarly troubling language. Recently, TechFreedom called out this problematic language in two antitrust bills in the Senate that seem to have quite a lot of traction.
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
Whatever you think of the underlying rationale for these bills, it seems weird that these bills, introduced by Democrats, would satisfy the Republicans’ desire to force online propaganda mills onto their platforms.
Every “deplatformed” plaintiff will, of course, frame its claims in broad terms, claiming that the unfair trade practice at issue isn’t the decision to ban them specifically, but rather a more general problem — a lack of clarity in how content is moderated, a systemic bias against conservatives, or some other allegation of inconsistent or arbitrary enforcement — and that these systemic flaws harm competition on the platform overall. This kind of argument would have broad application: it could be used against platforms that sell t-shirts and books, like Amazon, or against app platforms, like the Google, Apple and Amazon app stores, or against website hosts, like Amazon Web Services.
Indeed, as we’ve covered in the past, Gab did sue Google for being kicked out of the app store, and Parler did sue Amazon for being kicked of that company’s cloud platform. These kinds of lawsuits would become standard practice — and even if the big web services could eventually get such frivolous lawsuits dismissed, it would still be a tremendous waste of time and money, while letting grifters play the victim.
Incredibly, Republicans like Ted Cruz have made it clear this is why they support such bills. In fact, Cruz introduced an amendment to double down on this language and make sure that the bill would prohibit “discriminating on the basis of a political belief.” Of course, Cruz knows full well this doesn’t actually happen anywhere. The only platform that has ever discriminated based on a political belief is… Parler, whose then CEO once bragged to a reporter how he was banning “leftist trolls” from the platform.
Sponsored
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Even more to the point, during the hearings about the bill and his amendment, Cruz flat out said that he was hoping to “unleash the trial lawyers” to sue Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and the like for moderating those who violate their policies. While it may sound odd that Cruz — who as a politician has screamed about how evil trial lawyers are — would be suddenly in favor of trial lawyers, the truth is that Cruz has no underlying principles on this or any other subject. He’s long been called “the ultimate tort reform hypocrite” who supports trial lawyers when convenient, and then rails against them when politically convenient.
So no one should be surprised by Cruz’s hypocrisy.
What they should be surprised by is the unwillingness of Democrats to fix their bills. A group of organizations (including our Copia Institute) signed onto another letter by TechFreedom that laid out some simple, common-sense changes that could be made to one of the bills — the Open App Markets Act — to fix this potential concern. And, yet, supporters of the bill continue to either ignore this or dismiss it — even as Ted Cruz and his friends are eagerly rubbing their hands with glee.
This has been an ongoing problem with tech policy for a while now — where politicians so narrowly focus on one issue that they don’t realize how their “solutions” mess up some other policy goal. We get “privacy laws” that kill off competition. And now we have “competition” laws that make fighting disinformation harder.
It’s almost as if these politicians don’t want to solve actual issues, and just want to claim they did.
Sponsored
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:
No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
Hertz Ordered To Tell Court How Many Thousands Of Renters It Falsely Accuses Of Theft Every Year
Massachusetts Court Says No Expectation Of Privacy In Social Media Posts Unwittingly Shared With An Undercover Cop
