Congress Is Poised To Pass A Bill Which Will Cost Big Tech

[Swordsmyth]

Congress is on the brink of passing major legislation which would restructure how Big Tech does business. But advocates worry if it is not passed quickly, or at least by the end of the year it could die. On the other side are lobbyists hired by Big Tech, working feverishly to block it.

The bill, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year by a wide margin. This Senate bill closely resembles an earlier House version.

Referred to as the self-preferencing or anti-discrimination bill by staff and lawmakers, the legislation will prevent dominant tech companies from giving their own services preferential treatment when marketing services to customers. It would force companies like Amazon to rank competitor’s products equally alongside their own, and offer third-party shipping options to customers in a competitive fashion to their own. It would also prevent a company like Google from listing its own product placements or recommendations above those of websites it delivers in search results.
So far the bill appears to have overcome intense lobbying by the tech sector, and is heading toward passage before the August recess.

More at: https://www.thefinancialtrends.com/2...cost-big-tech/

[Occam's Banana]

Yet more government is not the solution.

But in this case, I'm not even sure what the problem is supposed to be. There is nothing wrong with Amazon, et al. giving preferential treatment to their own advertising. (And is the fact that they do that supposed to be some kind of shocking or disturbing revelation? What the hell else could they be reasonably expected to do?) At least I know they're doing it, and why, and can account for those things.

What I cannot account for are the decisions made by government apparatchiks regarding how much of whose advertising they think I ought to see.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Who can compete with Amazon delivery? Amazon didn't just happen it evolved into what it is. I was just saying the other day that if I buy from Amazon I can cancel delivery at anytime prior to it getting dropped off. What a money saver. Amazon puts it on one of their trucks and if you cancel they simply return it to the warehouse. Delivery via third party has way more expense and less control for Amazon.

[Swordsmyth]

Yet more government is not the solution.

But in this case, I'm not even sure what the problem is supposed to be. There is nothing wrong with Amazon, et al. giving preferential treatment to their own advertising. (And is the fact that they do that supposed to be some kind of shocking or disturbing revelation? What the hell else could they be reasonably expected to do?) At least I know they're doing it, and why, and can account for those things.

What I cannot account for are the decisions made by government apparatchiks regarding how much of whose advertising they think I ought to see.

Government is the solution to force or fraud.
If the nonplatform buyers or sellers are misled about the platform competing with the nonplatform sellers and giving biased results to the nonplatform buyers then that is fraud.

[Occam's Banana]

Government is the solution to force or fraud.

There is no "fraud" here. There is nothing even mildly inappropriate, let alone fraudulent, about companies giving preferential treatment to advertising for their own products and services on their own platforms. Only half-baked pinkos could imagine otherwise.

And the only "force" here is the force politicians are proposing to give themselves (and nameless, faceless bureaucrats) the authority to use in order to coerce companies into dancing to their tune.

If the nonplatform buyers or sellers are misled about the platform competing with the nonplatform sellers and giving biased results to the nonplatform buyers then that is fraud.

"if ... if ... if"

Any cases for which actual fraud can actually be demonstrated can be dealt with adequately under existing law. There is no need for any new law just for this particular scenario - none whatsoever. We are already drowning in a sea of ad hoc laws and regulations. We do not need more.

This is nothing more than a transparent and ham-fisted attempt by the Feds to gain leverage over so-called "Big Tech" firms. A politician or bureaucrat doesn't like your tech company's lax online censorship policies? Well, then, they just might have to investigate your advertising practices, which have suddenly become "questionable" ...

Furthermore, how can anyone (except politicians) think it's a good idea to give "Big Tech" companies even more incentive than they already have to seek, gain, and exploit influence in and over the government? They already collude and collaborate far too closely, and this proposed nonsense will only weld them together even more tightly.

And that's the sick irony of all this. Any ostensible "protections" (read: "special privileges") that "Small Tech" firms might initially get from this will be more than offset when the "Big Tech" firms inevitably acquire "regulatory capture" and proceed to use it to their benefit at the expense of their smaller competitors. (At which point, you can be certain there will be yet more politicians waiting in the wings to swoop in and propose even more new and urgently-needed laws and regulations to "fix" the problem ...)

[jmdrake]

Yet more government is not the solution.

But in this case, I'm not even sure what the problem is supposed to be. There is nothing wrong with Amazon, et al. giving preferential treatment to their own advertising. (And is the fact that they do that supposed to be some kind of shocking or disturbing revelation? What the hell else could they be reasonably expected to do?) At least I know they're doing it, and why, and can account for those things.

What I cannot account for are the decisions made by government apparatchiks regarding how much of whose advertising they think I ought to see.

Yeah. From Adolf Hitler's national socialist party platform on 1939.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

That said, Facebook, Twitter and Google are already in violation of antitrust law and federal civil rights law by colluding with each other and government agencies to "combat misinformation."

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah. From Adolf Hitler's national socialist party platform on 1939.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

That said, Facebook, Twitter and Google are already in violation of antitrust law and federal civil rights law by colluding with each other and government agencies to "combat misinformation."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

Exactly. That's precisely what I was getting at when I said this:

Furthermore, how can anyone (except politicians) think it's a good idea to give "Big Tech" companies even more incentive than they already have to seek, gain, and exploit influence in and over the government? They already collude and collaborate far too closely, and this proposed nonsense will only weld them together even more tightly.

Although I understand and sympathize with the impulse to use them, I'm no fan of anti-trust laws, either, though - or of their application against Google, et al. in the name of dealing with their censorship & "misinformation" shenanigans. I'd prefer to see a First Amendment approach - the government is infringing speech by proxy and cat's-paw - rather than an anti-trust approach. But ultimately, I don't think it really matters. Either way, the government is simply not going to act to significantly inhibit or prevent Google, et al. from cooperating with the government and doing what the government wants them to do. That is, after all, why they are colluding and collaborating with each other in the first place.

The root and locus of the problem is not the "Big Tech" firms and their censorship & "misinformation" shenanigans. They are just the symptom, not the disease, and treating the symptom by targeting legislation (or anti-trust action, or anything else) at them - assuming you can even accomplish that in the first place - is not going to cure the disease. At best, it will merely change the manner in which the disease manifests and operates, without mitigating or curing the disease at all. (And as I noted in my previous post, it may well make things even worse than they already are by motivating the targets to seek, acquire, and exploit even greater influence with politicians and bureaucrats than they already have.)

The disease - the actual root and locus of the problem - is the fact that the government has far too much power. Until that changes (if it ever does), all the legislation (or trust-busting, or what-have-you) in the world won't really make a damn bit of difference, any more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic would have. In fact, if any;thing, it will do just the opposite, since legislation (and trust-busting, and what-have-you) necessarily involves the government doing more and wielding more power, which is the source of the whole problem to begin with. In this case, the hair of the dog will only make things worse.

To put things in a nutshell: anything that does not involve the circumscription, curtailment, or reduction of government power is at best a complete and utter waste of time (and at worst is counter-productive and actively dangerous). Any legislation, course of action, etc. that does not aim at curtailing, reducing, or eliminating government power is simply not to be taken seriously as a "solution" to anything.

[tod evans]

Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up.


That applies here too.

[jmdrake]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

Exactly. That's precisely what I was getting at when I said this:



Although I understand and sympathize with the impulse to use them, I'm no fan of anti-trust laws, either, though - or of their application against Google, et al. in the name of dealing with their censorship & "misinformation" shenanigans. I'd prefer to see a First Amendment approach - the government is infringing speech by proxy and cat's-paw - rather than an anti-trust approach. But ultimately, I don't think it really matters. Either way, the government is simply not going to act to significantly inhibit or prevent Google, et al. from cooperating with the government and doing what the government wants them to do. That is, after all, why they are colluding and collaborating with each other in the first place.

The root and locus of the problem is not the "Big Tech" firms and their censorship & "misinformation" shenanigans. They are just the symptom, not the disease, and treating the symptom by targeting legislation (or anti-trust action, or anything else) at them - assuming you can even accomplish that in the first place - is not going to cure the disease. At best, it will merely change the manner in which the disease manifests and operates, without mitigating or curing the disease at all. (And as I noted in my previous post, it may well make things even worse than they already are by motivating the targets to seek, acquire, and exploit even greater influence with politicians and bureaucrats than they already have.)

The disease - the actual root and locus of the problem - is the fact that the government has far too much power. Until that changes (if it ever does), all the legislation (or trust-busting, or what-have-you) in the world won't really make a damn bit of difference, any more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic would have. In fact, if any;thing, it will do just the opposite, since legislation (and trust-busting, and what-have-you) necessarily involves the government doing more and wielding more power, which is the source of the whole problem to begin with. In this case, the hair of the dog will only make things worse.

To put things in a nutshell: anything that does not involve the circumscription, curtailment, or reduction of government power is at best a complete and utter waste of time (and at worst is counter-productive and actively dangerous). Any legislation, course of action, etc. that does not aim at curtailing, reducing, or eliminating government power is simply not to be taken seriously as a "solution" to anything.

I'm well aware of some libertarian's reluctance towards anti trust laws. But consider this. Unlike sole proprietorship, partnerships, churches and other associations, corporations are a creation of government. Personally I think the libertarian position should be that they shouldn't exist. But they do. And in this specific case, based on the evidence we have so far, using the post civil war Civil Rights Acts along with the antitrust laws is the only way to reach all of the behavior. We have evidence from the Facebook whistleblower prior to the pandemic of the Facebook, Twitter and Google conspiring to deplatform platform people. That's the antitrust violation. We have the Fauci / Zuckerberg emails showing government collusion on COVID censorship. That's the civil rights violation. Fauci is a state actor by definition of being a government employee. And Facebook was acting as an arm of the state. We don't have direct evidence tying Fauci to Google or Twitter but we already have them tied to Zuckerberg via antitrust. Did Zuckerberg pass Fauci's Facebook fatwas to Twitter and Google? Maybe. They all certainly acted in concert. Anyway, we've got everything but a plaintiff. Paging Alex Jones.

Edit: This is something I know @Anti Federalist is interested in as well.

[Occam's Banana]

This is nothing more than a transparent and ham-fisted attempt by the Feds to gain leverage over so-called "Big Tech" firms. A politician or bureaucrat doesn't like your tech company's lax online censorship policies? Well, then, they just might have to investigate your advertising practices, which have suddenly become "questionable" ...

//

“Antitrust” Bills May Secretly Pave Way for MORE Big Tech Censorship

The New American
June 9, 2022

Is the latest “bipartisan” effort to curb Big Tech nothing more than a Trojan Horse?

Although some conservatives have thrown their support behind two bills ostensibly aimed at reducing the power of tech companies such as Google and Apple, the “antitrust” bills are, in fact, being praised by progressives who see them as a vehicle for enabling more censorship.
...

Full Article:
https://thenewamerican.com/antitrust...ch-censorship/

[Occam's Banana]

I'd prefer to see a First Amendment approach - the [federal] government is infringing speech by proxy and cat's-paw [...]

This is the way:

THREAD: Missouri & Louisiana sue feds for colluding with Big Tech censors

[Occam's Banana]

[...]

That said, Facebook, Twitter and Google are already in violation of antitrust law and federal civil rights law by colluding with each other and government agencies to "combat misinformation."

[...]

Although I understand and sympathize with the impulse to use them, I'm no fan of anti-trust laws, either, though - or of their application against Google, et al. in the name of dealing with their censorship & "misinformation" shenanigans.[...]

This is why anti-trust action - or any other "solution" that depends on the feds "doing the right thing" - is doomed to fail:

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/s...95517139070977

The federal government is simply not going to do anything that will significantly obstruct or curtail their own ability to effectively collude and collaborate with Big Tech. (More federal action is never the solution to the problem of too much federal action.)

Sic the states on the feds, not the feds on Big Tech.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...96152768974848

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/s...95517139070977

Craven Swine and More?

Oh, wait. I read that wrong. Sorry.

[Occam's Banana]

This is nothing more than a transparent and ham-fisted attempt by the Feds to gain leverage over so-called "Big Tech" firms. A politician or bureaucrat doesn't like your tech company's lax online censorship policies? Well, then, they just might have to investigate your advertising practices, which have suddenly become "questionable" ...

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/...31596875276289

Furthermore, how can anyone (except politicians) think it's a good idea to give "Big Tech" companies even more incentive than they already have to seek, gain, and exploit influence in and over the government? They already collude and collaborate far too closely, and this proposed nonsense will only weld them together even more tightly.

Oh, and gee, looky there:

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/s...95517139070977

[acptulsa]

Somebody's still getting inside information...

https://twitter.com/PelosiTracker_/s...64447779786755

[Occam's Banana]

Although I understand and sympathize with the impulse to use them, I'm no fan of anti-trust laws, either, though - or of their application against Google, et al. in the name of dealing with their censorship & "misinformation" shenanigans. I'd prefer to see a First Amendment approach - the government is infringing speech by proxy and cat's-paw - rather than an anti-trust approach. But ultimately, I don't think it really matters. Either way, the government is simply not going to act to significantly inhibit or prevent Google, et al. from cooperating with the government and doing what the government wants them to do. That is, after all, why they are colluding and collaborating with each other in the first place.

THREAD: SCOTUS: White House Can Influence Social Media Firms