How Disney Got That 'Theme Park Exemption' In Ron DeSantis' Unconstitutional Social Media Bill

from the foia-for-the-win dept

It's been almost exactly a year since Florida Man Governor, Ron DeSantis announced plans to try to pass a law that would ban social media websites from taking down misinformation, abuse, and other types of speech. When the final bill came out, at the very last minute, Florida Rep. Blaise Ingoglia tried to sneak in an amendment that carved out Disney, by saying the law didn't apply to any company that owned a theme park. This took other legislators by surprise, as indicated in this somewhat incredible video of Florida Reps. Anna Eskamani and Andrew Learned confronting Ingoglia over this amendment and what it meant:

In that video, Ingoglia flat out admits that the goal was to try to carve Disney+ out of the definition of a "social media provider." He says they looked at other possible language changes and adding the "theme park" exemption was just the easiest way to exclude Disney. Of course, that never made any sense. In the video he says, repeatedly, that this is to protect "reviews" on Disney+, which is weird because Disney+ doesn't have reviews. He also tries to make weird distinctions between Disney and Netflix which suggests a really confused understanding of Section 230 and how it interacts with first party and third party content. Amusingly, Eskamani points out at one point that Disney owns other websites -- like ESPN.com -- and asks if they, too, would be exempted from the bill, and Ingoglia responds in the most inane way possible: "as long as they follow their policies, everything should be fine." Which... makes no sense and didn't answer the question.

Either way, the bill has since (rightly) been declared unconstitutional (though Florida is appealing), and the issue of the theme park exemption was mostly a sideshow in the ruling.

However, it still left many people scratching their heads as to how that came about -- including intrepid reporter Jason Garcia, who filed some freedom of information requests with the Governor's office to see if he could find out the backstory behind the Disney theme park exemption... and, let me tell you, he hit pay dirt. The emails reveal quite a lot. And, as Garcia notes:

Ron DeSantis’ willingness to give Disney an incoherent carveout from this bill raises real questions about whether the governor really cared about cracking down on Big Tech – or whether he just cared about making voters think he’d cracked down on Big Tech.

But more telling is the finding that the "amendment" appeared to come directly from Disney. The governor's legislative affairs director, Stephanie Kopelousos, emailed staffers in the Florida House to call her, and then 21 minutes later, emailed them the theme park amendment, with the subject line: "New Disney language." And, just to underline the fact that Kopelousos was corresponding with Disney folks, when some House staffers pushed back on some ideas this happened:

In one email to the other governor’s office and House staffers, Kopelousos sent a proposal under the subject line, “Latest from Disney.” A few hours later, after other staffers expressed concern that idea was too broad, she sent in another attempt, which she explained with the note, “Disney responded with this.”

At one point, Disney, through Kopelousos, suggested carving out "journalism" organizations (as if Disney is a journalism organization). That created something of a mess:

An hour later, Kopelousos emailed a third possibility. The subject line was “New Disney language,” and the language, she told the others, came “From Adam,” presumably a reference to a Disney lobbyist named Adam Babington.

[....]

“So Disney is a journalistic enterprise now?” Kurt Hamon, the staff director for the House Commerce Committee, wrote in response to of the company’s ideas. “I would say no to this one too...why would we [exempt] journalism enterprises? Would Google, Facebook and Twitter qualify as a journalistic enterprise?”

“If they have a problem with Kurt’s narrow suggestion, then they are probably doing or seeking to do more than they have indicated,” James Utheier, who was DeSantis’ general counsel and is now the governor’s chief of staff, wrote in response to another.

Basically, it appears that Disney kept trying to carve itself out and, as Ingoglia more or less admitted, with the clock ticking down on the Florida legislative session, most of Disney's own suggestions were ridiculous -- so the nonsense "theme park exemption" became the easiest to carve out Disney.

Some of these emails are hilarious.

I mean, this isn't a surprise, but it just confirms what was obvious all along. DeSantis proposed this dumb idea, and his minions in the legislature ran with it, without bothering to think through basically any of the consequences of the bill (let alone the constitutional problems with it). And then just as they were about to pass it, a Disney lobbyist realized "shit, we have websites too..." and demanded a carve out.

This is not how law-making is supposed to be done, but it sure is how law-making often is done. It sure shows the kind of soft corruption of the system, in which a large company in the state, like Disney, get to write themselves out of bills.

For what it's worth, Garcia also notes that the Senate companion to the House bill sailed through... basically because Florida state Senator Ray Rodriques flat out lied about it when questioned. He noted that the House had passed a similar bill to one they had passed, noting "the House placed some amendments on it." He then describes the other amendments the House added (which made the bill even dumber, but whatever) and then skips right over the Disney exemption. So then the Senate President asks the Senate to approve the Disney Amendment without anyone even saying what it was. Another state Senator, Perry Thurston, jumps in to ask what's in the amendment.

The Senate President, Wilton Simpson, says: "Senator Rodrigues explained the amendment. The amendment that he explained was this amendment."

Except, that's not true. At all. Rodrigues skipped right over the theme park amendment. And... then the Senate just voted to allow the amendment without ever actually saying what it did. In some ways, this is even more embarrassing than the Eskamani/Learned/Ingoglia discussion in the House. At least they were able to discuss the Disney exemption in the open and admit to what it did. Rodriguez just flat tried to ignore it to get it included...

And people wonder why the public doesn't trust politicians? Perhaps this cronyism and nonsense is why...

Filed Under: 1st amendment, blaise ingoglia, content moderation, corruption, florida, ray rodrigues, ron desantis, section 230, theme park
Companies: disney

Top Disney Lawyer To Become Top Copyright Office Lawyer, Because Who Cares About The Public Interest?

from the mickey-mouse-operation dept

People at the Copyright Office seem to get mad at me every time I suggest that the Copyright Office is captured by Hollywood, and pointing out how top officials there all seem to bounce back and forth between the Copyright Office and Hollywood.

That's not to say there aren't some good people there, because there are. But the organization is dominated by former (and, if the past is any indication, soon to be again), lobbyists and lawyers of the biggest copyright abusers on the planet. So it's difficult to take the Office seriously as a steward for the public good (as they are supposed to be), when it's currently headed by the former top lawyer at IFPI, who, before that, was the top IP lawyer for Time Warner. And, when she then decides to hire Disney's top "IP lawyer" to become General Counsel of the Copyright Office (as has just been announced), it becomes really difficult not to be cynical.

This is what regulatory capture looks like.

But even worse, actions like this are why the public doesn't believe in copyright. Over and over again all we see is abuse of copyright, and then the government puts the same people who have abused copyright in charge of copyright at the Copyright Office, it makes the public cynical and (reasonably) distrustful of the intentions of the Copyright Office. That's disappointing, as there are plenty of people who have expertise in copyright law who would be great for the Copyright Office. But, for some reason, they never get hired into the top jobs unless they've spent time working for one of the giant Hollywood or recording industry organizations.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright office, corruption, public interest, regulatory capture, shira perlmutter, soft corruption, suzanne wilson
Companies: disney

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

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

Russian Government Abuses IP Law, Regular Law To Shut Down Alexey Navalny's 'Smart Voting' App

from the hashtag-just-Putin-things dept

The Russian government sent KGB 2.0 (the FSB) to kill opposition leader Alexey Navalny late last summer. That effort failed. Navalny survived the poisoning attempt to continue to be a thorn in Putin's side. So, the Russian government did the next best thing. It tossed Navalny in jail, revoking his suspended sentence to imprison him in a "corrective labor colony."

That still hasn't managed to silence Navalny to the Russian ruling party's satisfaction. He's still capable of moving masses and shaping elections despite being confined. One of his efforts -- Smart Voting -- continues to make things difficult for the dominant "United Russia" party. Debuting in November 2018, Smart Voting aids in the consolidation of opposition votes in areas where parliamentary races are close enough they can possibly be swung in favor of opposition candidates.

The effort to silence Navalny continues, with the Russian government trying to kill off his Smart Voting project. Its first move was to secure a court order forbidding Google and Yandex from returning search results for the term "smart voting." Enjoy this incredibly bold blast of extreme shadiness that does everything but provide a phonetic pronunciation of the word "corruption."

The Moscow Arbitration Tribunal issued an injunction prohibiting Google and Yandex from creating a list of results for the search query “Smart Voting”. The relevant decisions were made on the website published by the court.

The documents showed that the lawsuit against both companies was brought by Woolintertrade. The main activity of the company is the wholesale of agricultural raw materials. Woolintertrade deals with the purchase and processing of unwashed sheep’s wool in order to sell it. In the summer, the company received approval from Rospatent to register the “Smart Voting” trademark.

So, through the magic of government intervention, a company that has nothing to do with "smart" and/or "voting" managed to secure a trademark during the run-up to an election and talk a court into issuing an injunction that would prevent voters from working together to elect opposition candidates.

This bullshit still didn't satisfy the Russian government, which has now ordered Google and Apple to boot Navalny's Smart Voting app from its stores.

Russia demanded this month that Apple and Google remove the app from their stores, saying a refusal to do so would be treated as meddling in its parliamentary election.

Apple and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

On Thursday, Russia said official approaches had been made to the two companies' chief executives.

The demands worked. The apps were removed. And the worst possible outcome for both companies has been achieved: the gratitude of the thuggish Russian government.

During a daily briefing Friday, President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin welcomed Google and Apple’s decisions to comply with the Russian government’s lawful orders.

“Both platforms received a notification and they have apparently decided [to delete the Navalny apps] in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law,” Peskov told reporters.

“We dislike [Smart Voting]. This is just another absolutely provocative attempt that actually harms voters. There’s no other way of treating this,” Interfax quoted Peskov as saying.

Yep, giving Russian citizens the power to loosen United Russia's grip on national governance is definitely "provocative." However, it's definitely not "harmful" to voters… unless Peskov was insinuating those who voted for opposition candidates will be subjected to retaliatory actions by the government they failed to unseat.

As for Apple and Google, refusing to comply was always an option. Why they didn't refuse remains unclear. I mean, both companies could have just told the Russian government to put it on their respective tabs.

Google, Apple and social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Telegram have been subject to several months of court-imposed fines totaling several million U.S. dollars for their failure to delete content that Moscow deems illegal, including calls to attend unsanctioned protests.

The only difference here was the dangling threat of criminal prosecution, which may have forced the companies to make the wrong decision for the right reasons: to keep their Russian-based employees from being rounded up and sent away to penal colonies to spend a few years with Navalny and his supporters.

Finally, there's this censorial cherry on top:

Following a request from Russian authorities, YouTube has blocked access to a video posted by Alexei Navalny’s team with a list of anti-Kremlin candidates it wants voters to back in nationwide parliamentary elections currently underway

That's right. A complete "fuck you and your YouTube video too" from a government obviously afraid it can't win a parliamentary election without pulling out all the stops to silence the imprisoned leader of its opposition.

Filed Under: alexey navalny, app stores, content moderation, corruption, court orders, russia, smart voting, voter suppression, voting apps
Companies: apple, google

States Wouldn't Be Pushing Inconsistent Tech Laws If Congress Wasn't So Corrupt

from the cycle-of-stupid dept

You might recall after the telecom lobby convinced Congress to obliterate both privacy and net neutrality rules (despite both having bipartisan public support), there was a lot of industry whining about the various state replacement efforts that popped up. For example when California popped up with its own net neutrality rules, AT&T whined incessantly about how a "discordant network of state laws" would harm puppies and innovation. Ignored, of course, is that states were simply rushing to fill the consumer protection void created by federal apathy, itself a direct result of lobbying (aka corruption).

The same thing happened with broadband privacy guard rails. In 2015, the FCC proposed some fairly basic broadband privacy rules largely focused on making sure what was being collected and sold would be transparent to consumers. But the telecom lobby was easily able to lobby the GOP-controlled Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to kill those rules before they could even take effect. And again, giants like AT&T whined about the discordant landscape of imperfect state legislative efforts that popped up in its wake, hoping you'd ignore that they helped create the problem by attacking even the most basic federal protections.

The same thing of course is now playing out in the broader tech sector as well. For years, the tech, healthcare, marketing, insurance, and telecom sectors have worked to uniformly battle any meaningful federal privacy protections on the federal level. Not just the bad proposals. All of them. And, unsurprisingly, after years of this, states have started filling the void with their own solutions, many of which are less than perfect. This, as we saw with telecom, is causing all manner of consternation and constipation at major tech companies:

"There's little question state and local policy moves get the attention of both tech companies and Congress. David Edmonson, vice president for state policy and government relations at the trade group TechNet, said that the "impact of a 50-state patchwork" is among the group's highest concerns.

The group, which is known for its state-level advocacy work, said it worries about the compliance costs and impact of patchwork regulation on small businesses — although its membership is primarily midsize and large companies. It also fears the potential impact on consumers who may be confused about their rights or who remain completely uncovered because of where they live, according to Edmonson."

"A 50-state patchwork of state-based privacy laws creates more problems than it solves both for consumers and the digital economy," he said. "A single federal standard that applies to all 50 states is better for both consumers and businesses."

AT&T and Comcast are both members of Technet, it should be noted, and are both particularly guilty of this practice of lobbying against all federal consumer protections, then whining incessantly about the resulting escalation in state proposals. So basically, large companies work tirelessly to fight pretty much any meaningful federal consumer protections, then complain via their proxy groups about the end result, namely an inconsistent patchwork of discordant state consumer protection rules. At no point is there any awareness that their own actions may have contributed to the outcome they're now complaining about.

Yes, there's some valid business concerns about having to comply with a massive patchwork of often inconsistent legislative solutions. And there's certainly ample concerns with how many of these laws are written, as California's often problematic privacy law can attest. And yes, there's also plenty of valid concerns that legislating many of these problems is well beyond the core competency of many modern q-anon-era elected officials.

But what I've noticed missing from any of these conversations is how this is all largely a byproduct of Congressional corruption. Or, quite often, any mention that the very problem companies are complaining about (states passing discordant legislation) was the direct byproduct of their lobbying influence on federal lawmakers.

Congress is so broken and corrupt, even very popular proposals (see: net neutrality) can't survive for long. And that's particularly true of policy issues that see broad, cross-industry opposition like privacy. There's an army of industries, all with near unlimited budgets, laser-focused on not just opposing bad federal privacy rules, but any federal privacy rules at all. It's virtually impossible for activists, academics, and truly solution-focused, objective experts to combat efforts backed with those kinds of resources. Again, we can call that specific problem a lot of things, but it's predominately a byproduct of corruption.

Those with the power and resources to truly dictate U.S.tech policy very much like the current unaccountable adtech paradigm that involves over-collecting data, selling access to it to any nitwit with a nickel, failing repeatedly to secure it, then occasionally getting a piddly wrist slap from underfunded and understaffed U.S. regulators as a modest cost of doing business.

If you look at the steady drumbeat of hacking, location data, and other scandals, that approach isn't working out that well for the rest of us. And yet we still somehow can't seem to get even a basic federal privacy law on the books (one that mandates some very basic transparency requirements, or erects some very clear but meaningful penalties for companies that refuse to secure their networks and servers). The primary reason for that is clearly corruption, but again, that's often rarely mentioned in discourse.

At some point you'd think many of these large companies would realize that it would be better to concede on some issues and support basic, decent, federal solutions even if there's a revenue hit. But because they know Congress is ethically malleable, they know they don't have to do that.

So instead, as we saw in telecom, you'll have a company like AT&T lobby to kill meaningful federal and state consumer protections (privacy, net neutrality), then try to push their own shitty federal proposals written by their lawyers. Proposals so filled with intentional loopholes as to be useless beyond one core function: supplanting better, stronger, consensus-driven federal and state legislative solutions. But whether it's Facebook or AT&T, if they truly claim to want consistent federal guidelines, maybe, I don't know, stop throwing millions of dollars at lawmakers who then fight tooth and nail against absolutely every effort to do that?

Filed Under: broadband, congress, corruption, privacy, regulations, soft corruption, states

FCC Gives ISP $8,000 To Deliver Broadband Five Feet From Apple's $5 Billion Campus

from the wasted dept

We've noted repeatedly that there are two major reasons US broadband is slow, spotty, and expensive: regional monopolization (a lack of competition), and the state and federal regulatory capture (corruption) that protects it. On the latter front, there's been an absolute army of telecom industry aligned folks, who, for decades, have relied on dodgy broadband availability maps and dubious data to not only pretend there's no real problem that needs fixing, but also to slather companies with subsidies without ensuring that money actually goes toward fixing the problem.

Last fall, the FCC held a reverse auction doling out nearly $9 billion from the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), paid into via Universal Service Fund (USF) contributions affixed to your broadband and phone bills. To be very clear: some of this money will absolutely help shore up access in underserved communities. But after digging into the FCC maps of the winning bidders, consumer groups found a long list of examples where we were throwing billions of dollars at companies for deployments that make no sense.

For example, Free Press noted that Elon Musk, the second wealthiest man on the planet, managed to game the FCC system and nab $886 million in ratepayer subsidies for his Starlink system. And he did it by promising the FCC that his company would bring broadband to essential US areas like... already connected airports and highway traffic medians:

"As we have documented in our previous two posts, however, this effort to close the rural-broadband digital divide looks more and more like one of the most wasteful projects in FCC history."

While some of this grift will be cleaned up in a second round of FCC application review, you can't blame this on "we didn't know," or "the system just needs tweaking." We've thrown countless billions of dollars at telecom incumbents for fiber networks routinely only half completed. It's a policy choice. Now we're giving billionaires who don't need the money, even more money to deliver service that's inferior to the fiber networks most of you already paid for.

The problem is pervasive. Light Reading, for example, noticed this week that a small wireless ISP by the name of LTD Broadband is poised to get $8,000 from the FCC to deploy 1 Gbps service five feet outside of Apple's $5 billion new headquarters:

"RDOF funds will go to serve areas adjacent to the brand-new Apple Campus in Cupertino," complained the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) to the FCC in a recent filing. "Far from 'unserved,' the Apple Campus is one of the most connected places in the entire world."

LTD nabbed $1.3 billion in promised federal payments to build broadband across 13 states. But the company is one of several that's getting FCC funds that don't make sense, for service it's not clear they can even successfully deploy:

"LTD is one of several major RDOF winners that has faced withering criticism that it will not be able to meet its RDOF obligations. "There is no indication that LTD [Broadband] has the technical, engineering, financial, operational, management, staff or other resources to meet RDOF build-out and service obligations," wrote the Minnesota Telecom Alliance and the Iowa Communications Alliance in a recent joint filing to the FCC."

And while there have been spotty efforts to improve both mapping and subsidization, they always seem just around the next corner or a few years down the road. So when you see guys like the FCC's Brendan Carr whine about how "big tech" needs to give billions of dollars to "big telecom" for no coherent reason, notice how he excludes the fact that fixing the money trough that is US telecom subsidization should probably be tackled first. As Ajit Pai showed, pretending you care about the "digital divide," while simultaneously making the corruption and monopolization that created it worse, remains very fashionable.

Again, many subsidies have certainly gone to very promising projects that provide direct and immediate aid to underserved areas neglected by regional giants. But at the same time, federal and state US taxpayers have likely paid enough in subsidies over the last few decades to deliver fiber to every home in America several times over (not that we'd ever bother to do a comprehensive audit). Instead of getting that fiber, Americans get a very expensive hamster wheel that's about 40% incompetence and grift.

Filed Under: broadband, corruption, covid, digital divide, fcc, oversight, rdof, rural digital opportunity fund, subsidies, universal service fund, usf

Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock

from the wasting-taxpayer-funds dept

And, off we go. We've talked about a bunch of states pushing blatantly unconstitutional social media content moderation bills, with Florida leading the pack as the most eager to waste taxpayer money on something so obviously bogus. As you'll recall, at the end of last month, Florida really added some unconstitutional icing on the unconstitutional cake by exempting Disney (and any other company that owned a theme park in Florida) from the bill's social media requirements.

The bill has a few different unconstitutional provisions, but the one getting the most attention is that it bans non-theme park associated websites from removing content or accounts from people running for office. There are also the ridiculous transparency clauses that have become stupidly popular of late, and which really serve as a smokescreen to allow users to sue websites for being moderated.

And despite tons of experts explaining why this is unconstitutional, Governor Ron DeSantis -- who made this bill a key plank in his "look at me, I'm a MAGA culture warrior" platform -- has now signed the bill. And to put a clown show cherry on top of the censorious, unconstitutional cake, DeSantis highlighted infamous provocateur and fabulist James O'Keefe from Project Veritas, who attended the bill signing, and is currently suing Twitter for defamation over its reasons for kicking him off their platform.

Social media companies “use secret algorithms and shadow banning to shape debates and control the flow of information,” DeSantis said. “But yet they evade accountability by claiming they’re just neutral platforms, even as they amplify partisan agendas and censor dissent. Every day, they act as the proverbial Big Brother, and 2021 looks an awful lot like the fictitious 1984.”

I mean, I just can't even bother to respond to this nonsense.

As the Orlando Sentinel article notes, this attack on internet companies comes at the same time that Miami, in particular, has been hyping itself up as a good destination for tech startups. Except that this bill would create a massive liability regime for any internet company that hosts any user-generated content. I mean, unless they buy one of the thousands of theme parks found around Florida.

None of that will matter in the long run, because this bill is going to be tossed out eventually, after DeSantis wastes a ton of taxpayer funds trying and failing to defend this bill in court. The bill is (1) pre-empted by Federal law, as Section 230 makes clear, and (2) a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on laws that infringe upon speech rights, not to mention a pretty obvious attack on basic property rights.

But, these days, things like the Constitution and free speech take a back seat to Republican culture warrioring and victim-playing.

Even some Republicans recognize just how dumb the bill is:

“My concern is about potential candidates, about crazy people, Nazis and child molesters and pedophiles who realize they can say anything they want ... if all they do is fill out those two pieces of paper,” said Fine, R-Brevard County.

Though, it's notable that Fine still voted for the bill, despite recognizing that a key clause is going to have wildly stupid consequences. And that's basically all you need to know about why Florida will never become the tech hub it pretends it wants to be.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, corruption, florida, ron desantis, section 230, social media

The TikTok Oracle Grift: Insiders Admit They Went Hunting For A Tech Company The President Liked

from the because-of-course dept

Earlier this week we wrote about the absolute grift involved in the TikTok / Oracle deal. Contrary to the framing that this was Oracle "buying" TikTok to satisfy the President's unconstitutional demand that the Chinese company ByteDance sell TikTok to an American company, the story showed that this was just a hosting deal for Oracle's cloud service, which is way down the list of top cloud providers.

The end result was no actual sale (though the Treasury Department is still "reviewing" the deal), but a big contract for Oracle, and a bogus story in which the President can pretend he forced ByteDance to "sell" TikTok, even though it retains ownership in the company (there are some rumors that the hosting deal will include a small, and probably symbolic, equity stake for Oracle).

The other key point I noted in my article was that Oracle's executive leadership, starting with Larry Ellison, but including CEO Safra Catz, have been cozying up to Trump and the White House ever since Trump became President. While much of Silicon Valley's executive teams have made it quite clear how uncomfortable they are with a Trump Presidency, Oracle... has done the opposite. And while I framed it as being convenient that things worked out this way, a report from the Wall Street Journal highlights how this was the grift from day one.

Oracle was originally brought into the negotiations to provide an alternative to Microsoft Corp., a rival bidder with Walmart as a partner, said one person familiar with the talks. The U.S. investment firms Sequoia Capital and General Atlantic, which are existing investors in ByteDance, went in search of a tech company with close ties to the administration and settled on Oracle, the person said.

As we discussed earlier, from day one of this silly ordeal, the President made it clear he would steer a deal to a company he personally liked (meaning one where the leadership licked his boots, apparently). After all, after first saying that he was going to block TikTok in the US, as rumors of Microsoft's involvement came out, Trump immediately said that he would block a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft had to go grovelling to Trump over a weekend to have him say, grudgingly, they could continue to pursue a deal.

Then, of course, there's the Walmart story. Rumors came out that Walmart was a leading bidder, but Trump's White House stepped in and told them they would block that deal too, because it would show that Trump's figleaf "national security" explanation for banning TikTok was an obvious lie.

In other words, throughout this nonsense process, the President -- who at one point also demanded a finder's fee for any deal -- made it clear that this was about his own whims. He was forcing a sale, and he was going to pick a winner -- and the winner had to be someone he liked.

That doesn't seem like the kind of free market people appreciate. It seems like the very worst of a corrupt crony capitalist system.

The WSJ piece details how being corrupt this whole process was. It was all about stroking Trump's ego, and lining his campaign's bank account:

Sequoia Capital used its own connections to push the administration to allow TikTok to continue operating in the U.S., say people familiar with the discussions. Doug Leone, the firm’s global managing partner who took a lead role lobbying on TikTok’s behalf, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates this election season along with his wife, including to the president’s re-election campaign. Mr. Leone also held a reception at his Silicon Valley home for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in January.

Ms. Catz’s relationship to Mr. Trump could give Oracle a leg up in getting the deal approved, according to people in contact with the White House. Oracle has worked for decades with the U.S. government, including multiple contracts with the national-security establishment.

Once again, this was nothing but performative nonsense from the President that ends in his own supporters lining their pockets. None of it seems to have anything to do with actual national security. It's a joke.

Filed Under: china, corruption, donald trump, doug leone, grift, larry ellison, safra catz
Companies: bytedance, microsoft, oracle, sequoia, tiktok, walmart

Oracle Doesn't Buy TikTok, But Gets A Lucrative Hosting Deal, And Trump & Friends Will Pretend This Means Something

from the art-of-the-grift dept

The TikTok saga, which was insanely stupid to begin with, kicked into overdrive last month when President Trump issued a blatantly unconstitutional executive order that was designed to force ByteDance to sell TikTok to an American company. We had all sorts of questions about this, but effectively ByteDance had until this week to find a buyer. While Microsoft was rumored for a while, late last night Microsoft announced that its proposal had been rejected and the only competitor left standing was... wait for it... Oracle. This led many to conclude that Oracle was buying TikTok. That is not the case. But hold on, we'll get there.

There was one other serious bidder: Walmart. Last night the company claimed it was still interested in buying TikTok, but the White House rejected that plan, because it would have made it totally obvious that the "national security" pretense for demanding the sale was obvious bullshit. Nope, the White House said: it has to be sold to a "tech" company, so that the White House can stand by its totally unsubstantiated by evidence claims that TikTok's dancing teens represented a national security threat.

So, with Walmart blocked, and Microsoft's deal not accepted, that left Oracle. But immediately the descriptions of Oracle's involvement were... weird. They very clearly did not say anything about "buying" TikTok. Instead, Oracle put out a very short press release saying that it will "serve as the trusted technology provider" to TikTok. That's not how you describe a sale.

This is a hosting deal.

Oracle will just host TikTok on its wannabe, way-behind-the-competition, cloud platform. And Trump and his cult-like supporters will pretend this actually accomplishes something. Oracle's executive suite has long been vocal Trump supporters, so this basically dumps a giant hosting contract into Oracle's lap. ByteDance will effectively still own TikTok, and Trump will pretend he's done something. For what it's worth, this is the second big Oracle cloud deal done in the last few months, with the previous one being with videoconferencing company Zoom.

As Russell Brandom over at the Verge notes, this deal "accomplished nothing." ByteDance still owns TikTok (and, according to reports, retains full control over TikTok's algorithm). As former Yahoo and Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos points out, literally none of the concerns people have raised about TikTok (most of which were bogus in the first place) are solved by an Oracle hosting deal:

As Stamos points out, accepting this deal would show that it's nothing but "pure grift," basically dumping a forced contract into Oracle's lap, a company which (again) has had an executive licking Trump's boots since day one.

And people can't even truly argue that Oracle will somehow make whatever little "private" data there is on TikTok "more secure." It's not like it was just months ago that an Oracle-owned subsidiary, BlueKai, leaked data that tracked users all over the web, exposing billions of records.

In other words, the whole thing was a joke. Like so much of this administration it was performative nonsense by Trump, who was mad that some kids made him look foolish on TikTok, combined with anti-Chinese racism, to push for a deal he had no legal right to push for, resulting in a weird scramble that doesn't accomplish what he wanted, but does shift a bunch of money to some of his vocal and wealthy supporters. The "Art of the Grift."

Filed Under: china, corruption, donald trump, grift, hosting, larry ellison, national security, security
Companies: bytedance, microsoft, oracle, tiktok