The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work

from the regulating-on-myths dept

It's kind of crazy how many regulatory proposals we see appear to be based on myths and moral panics. The latest, just introduced is the House version of the Filter Bubble Transparency Act, which is the companion bill to the Senate bill of the same name. Both bills are "bipartisan," which makes it worse, not better. The Senate version was introduced by Senator John Thune, and co-sponsored by a bevy of anti-tech grandstanding Senators: Richard Blumenthal, Jerry Moran, Marsha Blackburn, Brian Schatz, and Mark Warner. The House version was introduced by Ken Buck, and co-sponsored by David Cicilline, Lori Trahan, and Burgess Owens.

While some of the reporting on this suggests that the bill "targets" algorithms, it only does so in the stupidest, most ridiculous ways. The bill is poorly drafted, poorly thought out, and exposes an incredible amount of ignorance about how any of this works. It doesn't target all algorithms -- and explicitly exempts search based on direct keywords, or algorithms that try to "protect the children." Instead, it has a weird attack on what it calls "opaque algorithms." The definition itself is a bit opaque:

The term "opaque algorithm" means an algorithmic ranking system that determines the order or manner that information is furnished to a user on a covered internet platform based, in whole or part, on user-specific data that was no expressly provided by the user to the platform for such purpose.

The fact that it then immediately includes an exemption for "age-appropriate content filters" only hints at some of the problems with this bill -- which starts with the fact that there are all sorts of reasons why algorithms recommending things to you based on more information than you provide directly might be kinda useful. For example, a straightforward reading of this bill would mean that no site can automatically determine you're visiting with a mobile device and format the page accordingly. After all, that's an algorithmic system that uses information not expressly provided by the user in order to present information to you ranked in a different way (for example, moving ads to a different spot). What's more, "inferences about the user's connected device" are explicitly excluded from being used even if they are based on data expressly provided by the user — so even allowing a user to set a preference for their device type, and serve optimized pages based on that preference, would appear to still count as an "opaque algorithm" under the bill's definitions. You could argue that a mobile-optimized page is not necessarily a "ranking" system, except the bill defines "algorithmic ranking system" as "a computational process ... used to determine the order or manner that a set of information is provided to a user." At the very least, there are enough arguments either way that someone will sue over it.

Similarly, lots of media websites offer you a certain number of free articles before you hit their register or paywall -- and again, that's based on information not expressly provided by the user -- meaning that such a practice might be in trouble (which will be fun to watch when media orgs who use those kinds of paywall tricks but are cheering this on as an "anti-big-tech" measure discover what they're really supporting).

The point here is that lots of algorithm/ranking systems that work based on information not expressly provided by the user are actually doing important things that would be missed if they suddenly couldn't be done any more.

And, even if the bill were clarified in a bill-of-attainder fashion to make it clear it only applies to social media news feeds, it still won't do much good. Both Facebook and Twitter already let you set up a chronological feed if you want it. But, more to the point, the very rationale behind this bill makes no sense and is not based in reality.

Cicilline's quote about the bill demonstrates just how ignorant he is of how all of this stuff actually works:

"Facebook and other dominant platforms manipulate their users through opaque algorithms that prioritize growth and profit over everything else. And due to these platforms’ monopoly power and dominance, users are stuck with few alternatives to this exploitative business model, whether it is in their social media feed, on paid advertisements, or in their search results."

Except... as already noted, you can already turn off the algorithmic feed in Facebook, and as the Facebook Papers just showed, when Facebook experimented with turning off the algorithmic rankings in its newsfeed it actually made the company more money, not less.

Also, the name of the bill is based on the idea of "filter bubbles" and many of the co-sponsors of the bill claim that these websites are purposefully driving people deeper into these "filter bubbles." However, as we again just recently discussed, new research shows that social media tends to expose people to a wider set of ideas and viewpoints, rather than more narrowly constraining them. In fact, they're much more likely to face a "filter bubble" in their local community than by being exposed to the wider world through the internet and social media.

So, in the end, we have a well-hyped bill based on the (false) idea of filter bubbles and the (false) idea of algorithms only serving corporate profit, which would require websites to give users a chance to turn off an algorithm -- which they already allow, and which would effectively kill off other useful tools like mobile optimization. It seems like the only purpose this legislation actually serves to accomplish is to let these politicians stand up in front of the news media and claim they're "taking on big tech!" and smile disingenuously.

Filed Under: algorithms, antitrust, big tech, david cicilline, filter bubble transparency act, filter bubbles, john thune, ken buck, opaque algorithms, ranking, richard blumenthal

Infrastructure Bill Is Great For Broadband, But Still Ignores The Real Problem (Monopolies & Corruption)

from the half-the-battle dept

After months of intense wrangling, the Biden administration's infrastructure bill has finally made it through Congress, delivering a massive injection of much-needed funds to an absurdly overlooked part of the economy. You might recall the broadband component of the bill saw its overall price tag cut from $100 billion to $65 billion. There were several other changes made at the request of the telecom lobby, such as a slower speed definition standard and the elimination of language to help community broadband. But it's still the biggest U.S. broadband investment on record, and filled with a lot of great things.

The Benton Foundation has done a good job breaking down what the money in the bill actually does in a multi-piece series.

Most of the bill's funds ($42 billion) will be used to create a State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program that involves grants to be doled out by the NTIA. Those grants will be used to shore up broadband gaps and fund digital divide initiatives. Additional funds will be used to deliver grants aimed at shoring up so-called "middle mile" networks (between the "last mile" to your home and your ISP). In most cases this money has to be spent in the next five years.

The bill also sets aside $14.2 billion to make the current Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) program permanent. The current EBB doles out $50 per month ($75 per month for tribal areas) to ISPs, which in turn use that money to provide discounts to low-income households that qualify. The bill lowers that tally to $30 a month. $2.75 billion will be used for digital inclusion and equity projects like helping seniors get online, $4 billion will fund programs at both the NTIA and USDA aimed at shoring up tribal broadband access, and another $600 million will specifically go toward addressing rural broadband gaps.

To be very clear, these programs will do a hell of a lot of good shoring up U.S. broadband coverage gaps and improving affordability for millions of Americans. The bill does some other very good stuff, like revisiting mandatory transparency requirements for ISPs, requiring they disclose all hidden fees and line limitations at the point of sale.

The problem with these kinds of ideas has been implementation and follow up.

The U.S. has thrown billions of dollars at this problem, yet up to 42 million Americans still lack access to broadband, and another 83 million live under a broadband monopoly. The core reason for this problem is regional monopolization and the state and federal corruption that protects it. Throwing more money at the problem without seriously addressing the underlying rot means you're not going to genuinely fix it. Many states in particular are just gobsmackingly corrupt, and the idea that this corruption won't seep into these efforts at a large scale is fairly naive.

Again, good bills are only as useful as the follow up. For example, there were months of reports on how major ISPs were exploiting the EBB discount broadband to basically upsell subscribers to more expensive tiers. What was done about it? Nothing, really. For decades, state and federal regulators and lawmakers threw billions of dollars in subsidies, regulatory favors, and tax breaks at entrenched regional monopolies for job growth and broadband deployments that were either half-completed or never arrived. What was done about it? Absolutely nothing.

So yeah, stuff like the EBB is great, but it's just a band aid on the real cause of the problem: regional monopoly power. And things like transparency requirements for ISPs are also great, but they're only as useful as the FCC's willingness to stand up to politically powerful companies like AT&T to enforce them, which historically has been... mixed at best.

U.S. broadband in 2021 isn't spotty, expensive, or slow because of technical or financial obstacles. It's spotty, expensive, and slow because the sector is dominated by a handful of powerful monopolies that don't just dictate policy -- they literally write the rules of the road. The end result is a broken, mindlessly consolidated market mired in regulatory capture. Everything, from net neutrality and privacy violations to crappy customer service and high prices, is a direct result of a conscious policy choice to pander to the biggest, wealthiest providers. Pointing this out in telecom policy is generally deemed hyperbolic or impolite.

So while there are a lot of very good things in these bills that should deliver concrete help to a lot of places, we still seem to be operating under the delusion that U.S. state and federal telecom oversight isn't a corrupt mess. It won't be particularly difficult for giants like AT&T to leverage their political power (which, in a long list of states, is near-absolute) to elbow out competitors, misdirect funds they don't deserve, or otherwise hamstring anything that threatens their interests. Actually making sure these funds are spent correctly will require the kind of diligence and follow up that's long been lacking.

Filed Under: broadband, corruption, infrastructure, joe biden, monopolies

Gasp! YouTube Shutters Account For Person Committing DMCA Takedown Fraud!

from the praise-be dept

It should come as no surprise to regular Techdirt readers that the DMCA takedown process is not only wide open to fraud and abuse, but that those avenues are regularly used in real life for just those purposes. Takedowns to silence criticism, takedowns to try to steal traffic from others, or takedowns or monetization claims just to get some paltry amounts of streaming revenue: the point is that this shit happens all the time. What absolutely does not happen with any frequency is the folks behind these bogus actions getting punished in any way for their behavior.

And so when it does happen, it's worth highlighting it, putting it on a podium, and trying to have it become the norm rather than the exception. To that end, let's highlight YouTube actually banning an account that appeared to be sending fraudulent DMCA notices.

Yesterday, the owner of the “Musical Creator” channel complained that their channel had been terminated after submitting a copyright takedown request. The operator of the channel doesn’t appear to be a native English speaker as the comment below shows, but it’s clear that they disagree with this decision.

“My youtube channel MUSICAL CREATOR has been terminated due to inlegal information copyright infringement. But I not violating any policy of youtube, I don’t know how my channel is terminated I filled out all the information legal. I want to get back my channel again,” the operator writes.

Now, a couple of things to say here. First, the channel's name is "MUSICAL CREATOR"? Hmm, okay, totally doesn't sound like the kind of thing you would create just to send DMCA notices and try to monetize others' content. And we don't have any details from YouTube as to what specifically was the issue with whatever takedown notice MUSICAL CREATOR sent. Instead, all we have is this from YouTube's notice directly.

“We are concerned that some of the information within this legal request may be fraudulent,” YouTube’s response reads. “Please understand that YouTube receives a large number of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, and we take abuse of that process very seriously.”

While that doesn't tell us much or let us vet out whether fraud was actually committed or not, it's worth keeping in mind again that YouTube takes very little action on this sort of thing generally speaking. By which I mean that the fact it took action in this case leads me to believe YouTube thinks it's on very, very solid footing here.

As a result, the MUSICAL CREATOR account is down. Anyone going to its page is simply told that the account is offline due to "a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service."

Again, it's hard to be completely assured that YouTube's actions in this case are appropriate... but I suspect they are. And, purely as a matter of percentage cases, the fact is that YouTube and other platforms have historically been so vastly on the side of those issuing DMCA notices instead of the potential victims of fraud that it makes stories like this unique.

Even though they shouldn't be.

Filed Under: censorship, copyfraud, copyright, dmca, dmca 512, notice and takedown, takedown fraud, youtube
Companies: youtube

Students Have Rights: Court Dumps Evidence After Cops Rely On A Month-Old Anonymous Tip To Search A Minor

from the striking-cold-irons-still-counterproductive dept

As courts seemingly have to remind school administrators (and their partners in unconstitutional crime, school police officers), students -- even minors -- still have constitutional rights. The First and Fourth Amendments are the most frequently violated, despite there being no lack of precedent upholding students' rights.

This latest rebuke of law enforcement overreach comes via the Colorado Court of Appeals (and via FourthAmendment.com). In this case, a Denver, Colorado student had his backpack warrantlessly searched by school security officers. This search resulted in the discovery of marijuana and paraphernalia, which led to juvenile charges against the minor, referred to in the opinion [PDF] as "C.C-S."

The reason the search was unconstitutional has a lot to do with how the school officers got it into their heads that C.C-S. should be detained and searched. The state of Colorado maintains an anonymous tip line called "Safe2Tell" which allows students and faculty to report suspicious activity or behavior to school officials.

The Safe2Tell tip that initiated this chain of unconstitutional events was old news by the time it was forwarded to DPS (Denver Public Schools) officials and, because of its origin, could not be corroborated.

A school security officer employed by Denver Public Schools (DPS) received a report that C.C-S., a student at a DPS high school, had been seen in a Snapchat video shooting a firearm out of a car window.

[...]

By the time the Snapchat video showing C.C-S. was reported to Safe2Tell on February 25, 2018, it was about one month old. At that point, no one was able to review the footage because videos posted on Snapchat automatically disappear from the platform after twenty-four hours, unless they are saved.

Nevertheless, school officials decided to act, relying on little more than this and another unsubstantiated (and unrelated) allegation.

Although unable to review the Snapchat video, the dean of C.C-S.’s school told the school security officer that C.C-S. had a history of “bringing things to school that he shouldn’t, such as drugs and things like that.”

"Drugs and things." Leaves a lot open to the imagination, which is what was exercised by school security officers, who took two uncorroborated reports and combined them into a search unsupported by probable cause.

At that point, the school security officer decided to search C.C-S., based on the Safe2Tell firearm tip, the dean’s comment, and the security officer’s policy of searching every student and their backpack when he received a Safe2Tell report that the student had either drugs or weapons. Once C.C-S. arrived at school, he was taken to an office for questioning by the school security officer, as well as a campus security officer, who was also employed by DPS but was stationed at C.C-S.’s school. With the door closed, the DPS officers told C.C-S. about the information they had received from the Safe2Tell tip and told him they were going to search his backpack.

C.C-S. refused to consent to a search and, after further discussion, attempted to leave the office. The DPS officers would not allow him to leave, instead reiterating that they were going to search his backpack. After the campus security officer asked C.C-S. whether he was refusing to allow the search because he had drugs in his backpack, C.C-S. confessed that he had drugs in his backpack and handed it over to the officers to be searched.

That's not consent. That's the implication that a search is going to take place, with or without cooperation. Keeping someone in a room and refusing to let them leave pretty much takes consent out of the equation. That only makes things worse for the school officers and the case they thought they had built against C.C-S.

Rights are rights, and while they are limited on school campuses, they are not nonexistent. The officers needed at least reasonable suspicion to approach and search C.C-S. and they didn't even have that.

[W]e conclude that the Safe2Tell tip was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion. We reach this conclusion for four reasons. First, as noted above, the tip was anonymous. Second, the information provided in the tip was stale. Third, because it was anonymous and stale, the limited information in the Safe2Tell tip did not provide reasonable suspicion that C.C-S. had committed or was about to commit a crime. And, fourth, the information about C.C-S.’s past behavior at school did not corroborate the Safe2Tell weapons tip.

Information about someone seen on SnapChat a month ago isn't a good tip, or an actionable tip, or even a somewhat fresh tip. It may prompt some additional "keeping an eye on" by administrators but it cannot justify a seizure and a search, even on school grounds, and even with the district's apparently unconstitutional policy of searching every student that has been reported via a Safe2Tell tip.

The school dean's "tip" was no better and created no additional reasonable suspicion. The tip mentioned drugs, not weapons, and there was no information given that implied or stated the student had brought weapons onto campus before.

The state argued that this was asking too much from the Safe2Tell program, which guarantees students' anonymity. Au contraire, says the court. This program may be useful and aid in public safety efforts, but it cannot summarily revoke students' rights for these reasons or by its mere existence.

While we recognize the importance of Safe2Tell’s role in preventing school violence, investigations based on Safe2Tell tips by DPS security officers and other school officials must occur within the bounds of students’ Fourth Amendment rights.

As for the supposed "consent" to a search, the court says there was no consent.

[W]e conclude that the uncorroborated Safe2Tell tip did not justify detaining C.C-S. Because he was unreasonably detained, we may not rely on his admissions made during that unlawful detention to uphold the search of his backpack.

The state also argued that the exclusionary rule does not apply to juvenile cases or school security officers. Wrong again, says the court. The rule applies to government employees and their actions, which encompasses school administrators and school security officers.

We conclude that applying the exclusionary rule in school searches conducted by DPS security officers would deter Fourth Amendment violations. Those security officers perform quasi-law enforcement functions, inasmuch as the evidence they collect is often used in juvenile delinquency adjudications such as this one.

[...]

To apply the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule to school searches is therefore a logical extension of Supreme Court precedent. Its application here is especially appropriate since school security officers, whether acting in concert with the police or not, are governmental actors.

There goes the evidence obtained during the illegal search… which would be all of the evidence. Without it, all the government has is C.C-S., who may or may not have been the person seen by some student in some Snapchat video officers never viewed and which had vanished from the service long before the tip was sent in. The state has nothing to prosecute with. But maybe it has at least learned it can't treat students like detainees following extraordinary rendition. Students have rights and the government -- at least in this case -- gains nothing by ignoring them.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, anonymous tips, backpack search, colorado, evidence, police, rights, school police, sro, students, tips

The Corruption Is In Congress: When Your New Bill Exempts The Biggest Employers In Your State, Perhaps There's A Problem

from the look-at-that dept

Karl wrote a bit about how the new antitrust bill from Amy Klobuchar and Tom Cotton pretends that the only industry that has competition issues is the internet industry -- despite evidence suggesting other industries are much worse off -- and briefly mentioned the fact that their bill conveniently excludes Walmart and Target. But the setup of the bill and those particular exclusions are so nefariously done, and so obviously corrupt, that they deserve a second post to call it out.

First off, when the House version of this bill came out, we highlighted that the $600 billion threshold seemed curiously specific, since it seemed specifically drawn just above a ton of politically powerful companies -- including Walmart, Disney, AT&T, Verizon, Visa, Mastercard, JP Morgan Chase, Disney, Bank of America and others. But notably the House version of the bill would put down the $600 billion line as a marker, and if those companies reached that threshold, then they too would be subject to the same rules, and prevented (or, significantly hindered) from buying other companies.

And that's where the Senate version is so nefarious. Under the terms of the Klobuchar/Cotton bill, it only applies to companies who are over the $600 billion line on the day the bill is signed. In other words, while the House version would eventually impact Walmart (largest employer in Tom Cotton's state) and Target (largest employer in Klobuchar's state), Klobuchar and Cotton conveniently changed the rules in the bill so that they would not impact the biggest companies in their home states.

There is no way to look at that other than as corrupt.

And, as Pat Hedger points out, Walmart has been growing like crazy over the last five years or so (which seems odd, considering we keep hearing that Amazon has "monopolized" commerce and is driving out all the competition):

So, as I type this Walmart is valued at a little over $400 billion. That might seem far off from $600 billion, but as recently as 2016 Walmart was valued below $200 billion. $600 billion in the next few years is not at all out of the question. And if this bill passes, it won't matter for Walmart.

Target is somewhat smaller, but also has been growing like crazy:

So both of those companies -- which compete fairly directly with Amazon -- have been growing like gangbusters, and their own Senators are introducing a bill that will block Amazon from acquiring companies, but has a built-in exemption that keeps both of these competitors from being limited in the same way Amazon is being limited.

Is there honestly any way to view this setup other than out and out corruption by Klobuchar and Cotton? Protecting the largest employer in each of their states by shackling the major competitor to each, and making sure their own companies are exempted from the law no matter how large they grow?

Filed Under: acquisitions, amy klobuchar, antitrust, arkansas, corruption, favoritism, mergers, minnesota, soft corruption, tom cotton
Companies: amazon, target, walmart

Daily Deal: ITU Online All-Access

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Use ITU Online for your own career advancement, and if you have any children at home who are tech-curious, let them try out IT beginner courses to get a head start in life. You'll get 24/7 access training in the topics of network admin skills, Cloud deployment, database/server management, networking fundamentals, cybersecurity training, tech support basics, and more. Vendor-neutral training and training in CompTIA, Cisco, Azure, AWS, Microsoft, and more. Each course comes with a progress tracker, a note-taking section with a save function, and a practice exam. A three-year subscription is on sale for $199 or an unlimited subscription is on sale for $299. Use the code SAVE15NOV to save an additional 15% off.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Yahoo Reminds Everyone It Still Exists By Formally Announcing Its Exit From China

from the dozens-of-users-forced-to-choose-from-hundreds-of-alternatives dept

The bell continues to toll for American tech companies willing to do business with China. Increasing censorship demands have made even the most obliging of platforms reconsider their obligations to the authoritarian regime, resulting in the most difficult tradeoff: a company's reputation versus access to a market containing more than a billion users.

LinkedIn was one of the last to pull up its anchor and exit the country under a not-so-full head of steam. LinkedIn survives in China, albeit in a severely limited form that will make it less likely to receive content deletion requests from the Chinese government. That doesn't mean it won't receive more requests. It just means it won't have as much to delete or block when it's asked to.

Most social media platforms operated by US companies are already blocked by the Chinese government, mostly due to their refusal to set up local data centers as is required by law in the country. Those that can still be accessed by Chinese citizens are subject to the censorial wishes of the government.

But nothing says American tech companies are done with China like the announcement that a long-forgotten search engine and email provider is finally calling it quits. Last chopper out of Saigon this ain't. But it's still notable, even if it only affects a small customer base.

Yahoo Inc. is shutting down operations in China due to an "increasingly challenging business and legal environment," The Wall Street Journal reports.

As of Nov. 1, Yahoo’s suite of services are "no longer...accessible from mainland China," a Yahoo spokesman tells the Journal, which notes that on the same day, China’s Personal Information Protection Law went into effect. The new privacy law from Beijing is meant to “curb data collection by technology companies,” the Journal says.

LOL. First of all, any Chinese law that claims to protect users from internet services just means the government is trying to oust companies that won't retain shitloads of data for the Chinese government to rifle through at will. The Chinese government does not care about the privacy of its citizens and it never will.

Second of all, any American tech company that willingly continues to do business does so at the government's pleasure. Cooperation with the Chinese government means being implicated in everything from jailing journalists to vanishing the country's Muslim population into political prisons. No company should want to be a part of that, no matter how really cool a billion users might sound.

Yahoo's announcement is a bit too belated to have much of an impact, however. It hasn't been relevant for years, which means most of the gasps in its direction are from people surprised the company still exists. And this exit strategy has been in the works for most of a decade at this point. Yahoo Mail was ejected from China in 2013 and Yahoo's holding company has been winding down its Chinese-based operations since then, obviously expecting the day would come when it would be no longer possible (or wise) to continue as subservient to the Chinese censorship apparatus.

But once you've lost Yahoo… as the saying goes. There's not much left for Chinese citizens to work with that isn't at least indirectly controlled by the Chinese government. Pulling out may leave Chinese residents with precious few options for uncensored communications, but staying put means allying with a government that's shown an alarming willingness to be all the bad things people have attributed to it over the years. It loves capitalism, but only when it can control it. And it abhors anything it can't.

American companies have either found the exit or been shown it by the Chinese government several times over the past decade. Those who have found the exit on their own can at least say they did it voluntarily, even if this statement comes years after it has any meaningful impact.

Filed Under: china, internet services, personal information protection law
Companies: yahoo

Klobuchar, Cotton Competition Bill Latest To Pretend 'Big Tech' Is The Only Industry With Problems

from the myopia-is-very-fashionable dept

So we've noted a few times that the recent Congressional fixation on "big tech monopolies" is weirdly myopic. As in, the United States is absolutely jam-packed with heavily monopolized sectors including banking, telecom, energy, and air travel that simply aren't seeing anywhere near the same level of hyperventilation. While it's true that giants like Facebook, Google, and Amazon are engaged in dodgy behavior at unprecedented scale, most of the "solutions" bandied about so far are oddly selective, sometimes harmful, and routinely performative.

For example, back in June we noted how the big "antitrust reform" bills being proposed in the Senate ignored entire industries and had major carve outs that didn't make much sense. Several of the bills, for example, applied only to companies that made more than 50 million monthly active U.S. users and have a market cap of over $600 billion. They effectively ignored that countless other companies (Visa, Walmart) or industries (telecom) even exist, which is...odd.

Amy Klobuchar and Tom Cotton formally introduced their Platform Competition and Opportunity Act (the counterpart to a similar bill proposed in the House) last Friday. The bill, purportedly, helps thwart companies that capture and kill their competitors via acquisition:

"Big tech firms have bought up rivals to crush their competition, expand their market share, and to harm working Americans," said Cotton in a statement. "Sen. Amy Klobuchar and I have a bipartisan bill to block these killer acquisitions."

Existing antitrust standards require that regulators prove that a deal is anticompetitive if they want to block it. Given our fairly broken court system, significant corruption, and steadily eroded antitrust standards, that's often ridiculously difficult even in obvious cases of harm. This bill would require that tech giants (and only tech giants) have to prove a merger helps competition before it will be approved. But there are a few problems with such a narrow focus. This aggressive destruction of competitors is how countless U.S. business sectors operate, but nobody is doing a damn thing about most of those.

The bill's definition is so narrow it won't even apply to sectors like telecom, where crushing competition via acquisition has been a 30 year favored pastime. Or companies like Target or Walmart, despite the fact they compete via the, you know, internet. The bill only applies to companies that as of the bill's signing have a market cap of $600 billion, meaning that non "big tech" companies who grow overlarge later wouldn't be covered. Which is, again, a weird thing to include if you're genuinely concerned about corporate and monopoly power:

"Two companies that are currently under the $600 billion line and thus exempt from the bill are mega-retailers Target and Walmart. These companies are both worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and their e-commerce platforms are growing at a faster rate than Amazon's. But under the Klobuchar/Cotton law, it wouldn't matter if Target and Walmart overtake Amazon—they would be immune from this new antitrust action, as long as they are small enough on the day the bill is signed."

Target is headquartered in Klobuchar's home state (Minneapolis, Minnesota). Walmart is headquartered in Cotton's home state (Bentonville, Arkansas). Surely that's a coincidence, though.

So why are these proposals so weirdly narrow? In part because the only "monopolies" the discourse cares about right now are of the "big tech" variety. The few Democrats who do care about monopolization see an opportunity to leverage GOP outrage to push some fairly narrow bills under the idea that narrow and weird progress is better than no progress at all. The problem? The GOP's beliefs on "antitrust reform" are hugely performative, and they historically never show up when it's time to vote for actual reform.

The press and much of the discourse can't admit it, but the GOP doesn't genuinely care about monopolization or unchecked corporate power. There are 40 years of documented evidence showing how a primary party platform has been to enable and protect monopolies in the telecom, banking, and energy sectors.

That's not to say that a lot of what Google and Facebook have been doing isn't hugely problematic. The recent revelations of Google paying both wireless carriers and smartphone vendors not to compete in the app store space is pretty cut and dry. And the recently unredacted portions of the AG lawsuit against Google (oddly ignored under the din of Facebook news) also shows a company that was clearly and aggressively anticompetitive on the ad front. But again, most of these are behaviors the entirety of Congress are perfectly ok with across numerous other industries. We've done virtually nothing about, say, Comcast, for example.

But I'm not entirely sure that corrupt and gridlocked Congress, at least this incarnation of it, is actually capable of fixing any of these these problems in big tech or elsewhere. The bills we've seen so far offer some inconsistent help, but even here I'm doubtful that GOP and centrist Democratic policymakers have the stomach to support even piecemeal reform. I think we'll see several years of posturing on "big tech," followed by very few if any competent solutions out of Congress. Any change that arrives will likely come via lawsuit, the Lina Khan FTC, or in response to bad press. And given the limitations of all of those avenues, that's probably not going to be enough.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, antitrust, big tech, tom cotton