Rep. Massie takes over key antitrust panel as GOP girds for Big Tech battle

[jct74]

Rep. Massie takes over key antitrust panel as GOP girds for Big Tech battle

By Ryan Lovelace
January 30, 2023

Rep. Thomas Massie is taking charge of the House’s influential panel for antitrust policy, putting the Kentucky Republican known as a fierce free-market defender in a key position to determine how the GOP pursues a crackdown against Big Tech companies.

Mr. Massie succeeds Rep. Ken Buck, Colorado Republican, a stalwart Big Tech critic who previously worked on the House Judiciary Committee with Democrats on legislation aimed at diminishing major companies’ market dominance. The subcommittee is part of the judiciary panel, on which both members serve.

“I’m looking forward to chairing the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform and Antitrust,” Mr. Massie tweeted on Friday.

The move was celebrated by free-market advocates and decried by conservatives who favor a more activist government antitrust crackdown on tech companies such as Facebook, Amazon and Google.

...

Mr. Massie has long opposed government intervention as the best answer to breaking up Big Tech power.

Some of Mr. Buck’s conservative allies criticized the selection of Mr. Massie to lead the panel. Internet Accountability Project founder Mike Davis said the move was the result of Mr. Jordan and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy fawning over Big Tech.

...

read more:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...t-panel-gop-g/

[jct74]

Conservatives worry GOP will go soft on Big Tech after Jim Jordan’s surprise committee decision
Ken Buck says taking antitrust reform 'off the table' is a 'mistake'

Brianna Herlihy
January 31, 2023

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan’s appointment of Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to lead the antitrust subcommittee instead of Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., is causing some conservatives to question how effective the House will be in reining in Big Tech.

Jordan, R-Ohio, announced last week that Massie would chair the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, which came as a disappointment to Buck, who has been a leader from the Republican side on antitrust reform. Buck says Massie’s appointment is a signal to how Jordan plans to approach antitrust enforcement of Big Tech companies.

"I was disappointed, but not surprised… when Jim told me that I would not be the subcommittee chair," Buck said in an interview with Fox News Digital. Buck noted that Massie was not previously on the subcommittee and had voted against legislation aimed at tightening antitrust enforcement on Big Tech companies.

...

A representative for Massie did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment, but Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Jordan, defended the decision to go with Massie.

"Rep. Massie is one of the smartest minds in Congress and will work harder than anyone on holding Big Tech accountable," Dye said, adding Jordan has said repeatedly that everything is on the table when it comes to antitrust and holding Big Tech accountable.

Still, some conservatives see Massie’s anti-antitrust history and libertarian approach as a bad sign. Jon Schweppe, director of policy for the American Principles Project, said Massie’s appointment, is a "step back" on antitrust enforcement.

...

read more:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/con...ittee-decision

[jct74]

Exclusive — Rep. Thomas Massie, Antitrust Subcommittee Chair: No Monopoly Is Safe

SEAN MORAN
3 Feb 2023

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Wednesday that he plans to take a comprehensive look at monopolies across all industries as the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee chair.

Last House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) announced that Massie would serve as the Subcommittee chair on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust.

Massie told Breitbart News that he plans to investigate nearly all industries for potential solutions to anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior.

He explained, “I contend that no monopoly can survive in a free market. Most monopolies require the government to survive, and when the federal government gives handouts and carveouts and overregulates competition and indemnifies the incumbents, those are recipes for monopoly creation and growth. And we do way too much of that. So, without spilling the beans, I intend to cover a lot of areas with this committee. There’s almost no industry that doesn’t have some kind of monopoly or group of people that dominate the market unfairly because of government intervention, government carveouts, handouts, indemnification, and overregulation.”

...

Massie said that he might be the perfect lawmaker for the committee, as he is both not afraid of ruffling feathers and does not raise enough money to worry about offending entrenched interests and donors.

The Kentucky conservative fought off critics who claimed that because he was nominated to serve as the antitrust subcommittee chairman, he would go softer than prior chairs on monopolies and other concentrated industries. He even contended that his subcommittee may broach other committees and discuss other bills that may further entrenched monopolies.

He elaborated, “There’s legislation that passes out of other committees that enables these monopolies. So, you know me, I’m not afraid of offending anybody and barely raised any money to start with. I’m like the perfect candidate to go in and upset a lot of monopolies that haven’t been visited because the committees of jurisdiction aren’t judiciary.”

...

read more:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...opoly-is-safe/

[Brett85]

I agree with Massie's opposition to regulating social media companies.

[acptulsa]

I agree with Massie's opposition to regulating social media companies.

Do you agree with the FBI, et al, coordinating censorship with them? And if not, how would you suggest we ferret that out?

[Brett85]

Do you agree with the FBI, et al, coordinating censorship with them? And if not, how would you suggest we ferret that out?

If the FBI is engaging in some sort of illegal activity, then laws against that should be enforced. I would have to see the examples of coordinating censorship.

[acptulsa]

If the FBI is engaging in some sort of illegal activity, then laws against that should be enforced. I would have to see the examples of coordinating censorship.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...er-Files/page3

[phill4paul]

I'd take Massie over nearly anyone on ANY committee. Of anyone I know he will act with the Constitution as guidance.

[Madison320]

If the FBI is engaging in some sort of illegal activity, then laws against that should be enforced. I would have to see the examples of coordinating censorship.

I totally agree. The last thing we need is the government to somehow force tech companies not to censor. Unfortunately most of the members of this forum disagreed when Trump was president. Most of them wanted Trump to bash big tech with antitrust and other lawsuits.

Of course now that Biden is in power there's a lot less of them that think government should have the power.

That being said there does appear to be evidence that the Biden administration is coercing big tech into actual censorship.

[dannno]

I totally agree. The last thing we need is the government to somehow force tech companies not to censor. Unfortunately most of the members of this forum disagreed when Trump was president. Most of them wanted Trump to bash big tech with antitrust and other lawsuits.

Of course now that Biden is in power there's a lot less of them that think government should have the power.

That being said there does appear to be evidence that the Biden administration is coercing big tech into actual censorship.

I don't think you would see anybody here advocating forcing companies do anything in the free market.

We don't have a free market. If the government funds a company or regulates an industry and that company becomes a monopoly, what do you do about that? Stop funding them, take away the regulations, ok, but maybe the damage is already done, maybe they aren't even being funded anymore or taking that away doesn't do anything. Or maybe it is impossible to get rid of the funding or regulations because our government sucks. They are already a monopoly, and only because government funded them from the beginning. So what do you do about that?

[acptulsa]

If the FBI is engaging in some sort of illegal activity, then laws against that should be enforced. I would have to see the examples of coordinating censorship.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1622739987031552002

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/...94630734299136

[Madison320]

I don't think you would see anybody here advocating forcing companies do anything in the free market.

We don't have a free market. If the government funds a company or regulates an industry and that company becomes a monopoly, what do you do about that? Stop funding them, take away the regulations, ok, but maybe the damage is already done, maybe they aren't even being funded anymore or taking that away doesn't do anything. Or maybe it is impossible to get rid of the funding or regulations because our government sucks. They are already a monopoly, and only because government funded them from the beginning. So what do you do about that?

You try to remove the regulation not add more.

Were you one of the ones that thought Trump should've hit the tech companies with antitrust or other penalties for censoring?

[dannno]

You try to remove the regulation not add more.

Were you one of the ones that thought Trump should've hit the tech companies with antitrust or other penalties for censoring?

Did you read my post? Of course it's better to get rid of the regulations. Everybody here would rather get rid of the regulations. What if it's impossible to get rid of the regulations because our government sucks? You just keep trying that and nothing else? If it's impossible to get rid of the regulations, you can keep trying to get rid of them, but do you just do that and nothing else if you see that it's an impossible task?

[acptulsa]

You try to remove the regulation not add more.

Remove what regulation, Maddy? If government is overreaching, then should it not be restrained? Are you so caught up in your knee-jerk reaction to the word "regulation" that you're opposed to government being self-regulating?

[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.

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.

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.)

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

//

[Occam's Banana]

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

[acptulsa]

Well, Massie may well fail. But at least he'll make some noise doing it.

[Occam's Banana]

POTUS ...

SCOTUS ...

Wannabe GOP "trust busters" ...

The feds are not coming to save us.

[Occam's Banana]

Well, Massie may well fail. But at least he'll make some noise doing it.

Massie knows the score - you don't set the fox to guard the henhouse:

[Massie's appointment] was celebrated by free-market advocates and decried by conservatives who favor a more activist government antitrust crackdown on tech companies such as Facebook, Amazon and Google.

[...]

Mr. Massie has long opposed government intervention as the best answer to breaking up Big Tech power.

[Massie] explained, “I contend that no monopoly can survive in a free market. Most monopolies require the government to survive, and when the federal government gives handouts and carveouts and overregulates competition and indemnifies the incumbents, those are recipes for monopoly creation and growth. And we do way too much of that. So, without spilling the beans, I intend to cover a lot of areas with this committee. There’s almost no industry that doesn’t have some kind of monopoly or group of people that dominate the market unfairly because of government intervention, government carveouts, handouts, indemnification, and overregulation.”

[...]

The Kentucky conservative fought off critics who claimed that because he was nominated to serve as the antitrust subcommittee chairman, he would go softer than prior chairs on monopolies and other concentrated industries. He even contended that his subcommittee may broach other committees and discuss other bills that may further entrenched [sic] monopolies.

He elaborated, “There’s legislation that passes out of other committees that enables these monopolies. [...]"

Massie wants to go after the feds (who are the actual root and source of the problem) instead of the Big Tech companies (who are just the symptoms of the problem).

[acptulsa]

Remove what regulation, Maddy? If government is overreaching, then should it not be restrained? Are you so caught up in your knee-jerk reaction to the word "regulation" that you're opposed to government being self-regulating?

Well, Massie may well fail. But at least he'll make some noise doing it.

I just hope he's able to dry the kindling in people's minds. Let's get this brushfire going.

[Madison320]

Did you read my post? Of course it's better to get rid of the regulations. Everybody here would rather get rid of the regulations. What if it's impossible to get rid of the regulations because our government sucks? You just keep trying that and nothing else? If it's impossible to get rid of the regulations, you can keep trying to get rid of them, but do you just do that and nothing else if you see that it's an impossible task?

So what's your solution?

[Madison320]

Massie knows the score - you don't set the fox to guard the henhouse:





Massie wants to go after the feds (who are the actual root and source of the problem) instead of the Big Tech companies (who are just the symptoms of the problem).

How are antitrust laws constitutional? They are clearly ex post facto law.

"Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Can you imagine the outrage if they passed a version of antitrust on non-business owners?

The Personal Antitrust Law - You are guilty if we decide what you're doing is illegal.

But very few give a crap if laws made up after the fact are used against big business.

What I want to know is who would be dumb enough to own a business in the US?

[dannno]

So what's your solution?

Not sure what the best solution is, it's complicated.. but I'm not completely against the idea of using the government to limit it's own power. I'll probably go with whatever Massie decides.

[Madison320]

Not sure what the best solution is, it's complicated.. but I'm not completely against the idea of using the government to limit it's own power. I'll probably go with whatever Massie decides.

Isn't using the government to limit it's own power the same as removing existing crimes?

What I was specifically worried about was the idea of punishing "bad" companies with antitrust laws or removing their liability protection. I'm sure you remember that this was a popular idea back when Trump was president. That would be a thousand times worse than what we have now. The last thing we need is a government agency that determines whether a business is "censoring" and then punish ones that supposedly are. That would mean businesses could only exist by government permission.