There are some new anti-trust laws being proposed in Congress aimed at big-tech. I am not optimistic. I suspect it is a lot of theater for the sake of voter appeal, while they continue to rake in donations from big-tech. Both parties get these huge donations, especially the Democrats of late.
American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which prohibits the use of a dominant platform to discriminate against rivals by giving preference to its own products.
Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, which bars the use of acquisitions to smother competitive threats.
Ending Platform Monopolies Act, which restrains dominant platforms from using their power across multiple types of business to give themselves unfair advantages.
Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching Act, or Access Act, which promotes competition by making it easier for businesses and consumers to move data when they want to switch to a new provider.
Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, which amends filing fees for the first time in two decades and provides the government funds to pursue antitrust actions.
What matters is the end-result, if anything, to-what extent it was re-worded by big-tech lobbyists, and how nobody will talk about it once made law (funny how that happens). How many Republicans are on the take you think?
.@Google censored videos where Republicans discussed whether children should be forced to wear masks.
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) June 18, 2021
And now @Google is lobbying Republicans to oppose antitrust reform legislation. pic.twitter.com/GnjDZBEuH1
Relatedly, Facebook has been big on pushing new internet regulations lately (which sound nice, but mostly suck):
Internet companies should be accountable for enforcing standards on harmful content. It’s impossible to remove all harmful content from the internet, but when people use dozens of different sharing services — all with their own policies and processes — we need a more standardized approach.
Forcing internet companies to police speech, how nice. Not only is this a dystopian nightmare, it would cripple any small competitor's ability to merely exist (conveniently for Facebook). Free speech isn't (and shouldn't be) always nice speech.
Online political advertising laws primarily focus on candidates and elections, rather than divisive political issues where we’ve seen more attempted interference. Some laws only apply during elections, although information campaigns are nonstop. And there are also important questions about how political campaigns use data and targeting. We believe legislation should be updated to reflect the reality of the threats and set standards for the whole industry.
If I can trust any of my American history and constitutional studies, then political speech was one of the big reasons for the first amendment. What is a political ad if not political speech? The laws we have are bad enough. Either you believe in free speech or you don't. The answer to bad speech (i.e., stuff you don't like, misinformation, fake news, etc.), is more speech (rebuttals, facts, logic), not censorship. And that is exactly what more political ad/speech regulation would be.
This all disturbingly corresponds to what Ace has been saying since about 2016, and today:
Now CNN assigns its Chief Deplatforming Officer Oliver Darcy to begin writing stories pressuring corporations to stop running advertising on the channel, pressuring their tech monopolist partners to limit and censor the channel, and asking hyperpartisan, pro-censorship Democrats if it's time to pass laws outlawing these channels.
6. The tech monopolies, now feeling pressure from corporations and threats of interference from state actors, do what they probably wanted to do anyway, and begin banning/limiting the channels the leftwing doesn't like.
And step 7:
7. Despite the fact that threats from the state contributed to the censorship by alleged "private corporations," NeverTrump and Conservative, Inc. say that the sovereignty of the tech monopolies must never be challenged and we must respect their completely-voluntary choice to censor alternative media. Which just happens to be a competitor of NeverTrump and Conservative, Inc. media as well.
In other words, they benefit personally, politically, and pecuniarily from these censorship campaigns just as the leftwing does, and support these censorship drives for the same craven, mercenary, disgusting reasons.
Remember, we have to "protect the public" from "disinformation," and force them to watch "real news."
"Real news," like CNN.
CNN, which suggested that the Indonesian airline was destroyed by a black hole.
Real news like that.
Tater has reason to push this agenda. I mean, apart from Jeff Zucker ordering him to.
He needs the competition to be outlawed more than almost anyone.
Facebook looks at step 6 like an opportunity: why not streamline it, get favorable state interference while making it harder for smaller competitors. Remember when the Wuhan lab-leak theory was a bannable fake-news conspiracy theory? Now it is at least a legitimate newsworthy question. Remember when buying masks were bad, then they were mandatory? Remember when coronavirus was not viewed as serious and banning travel was racist and excessive? Boy did that pendulum swing.
The experts, the consensus, the big-tech monopolists are and have been frequently wrong. Imagine them with more power over speech, with the help, support, and blessing of the government.
