Connect with us

FTC

Senators Cruz and Hawley Demand Federal Trade Commission Investigation of Big Tech’s Content Moderation

Published

on

WASHINGTON, July 15, 2019 — Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley want the Federal Trade Commission to use its investigatory authority to demand internal documents and information pertaining to content moderation policies at major technology companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and to release those documents to the public.

In a Monday letter to all five members of the FTC, Cruz, R-Texas, and Hawley, R-Mo., ask that the commission use its authority to compel production of documents related to “conduct” and “practices” concerning “how major tech companies curate content.”

“We write to encourage the FTC to exercise its section 6(b) authority to investigate how major tech companies curate content. As you know, you do not need a law-enforcement purpose to investigate these companies. The law provides the tools needed to force companies to give you the information necessary to investigate their ‘conduct” and “practices,'” Cruz and Hawley wrote.

In their letter, Cruz and Hawley repeat a number of false and claims and conspiracy theories centered around the idea that tech companies are actively working to suppress speech by conservative.

“[T]hey actively censor some content and amplify other content based on algorithms and intentional decisions that are completely nontransparent,” they wrote, adding that “possibilities for abuse in this area are alarming and endless.”

Cruz and Hawley describe the routine process of content moderation and search result curation that search engines and social media platforms need to engage in to have a usable website as “censorship” that is “impossible to detect,” and repeat a claim made by President Trump that major technology companies are working to prevent his reelection by suppressing speech by his supporters. No evidence has been provided to justify this claim.

“By controlling the content we see, these companies are powerful enough to—at the very least—sway elections,” read the Cruz-Hawley statement. “And we’re told we have to be satisfied simply with trusting them not to abuse this immense power…. Companies that are this big and that have the potential to threaten democracy this much should not be allowed to curate content entirely without any transparency.”

“These companies can greatly influence democratic outcomes, yet they have no accountability to voters. They are not even accountable to their own customers because nobody knows how these companies curate content.”

Cruz and Hawley have repeatedly argued that tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter deliberately censor conservatives. They evidence in support of support statements appears to be limited to the fact that some users who identify as conservatives have been banned from these platform because of the platforms’ enforcement of terms of service against hate speech and harassment.

Hawley has routinely decried technology companies’ immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which prevents them from being sued for statements made by a user of their platforms – as “a special giveaway from government.” Hawley incorrectly argues that Section 230 was conditioned upon a grant of political neutrality.

The freshman senator, who previously served as Missouri’s Attorney General, recently introduced legislation that would eliminate technology companies’ immunity under Section 230 unless they can prove to four of five FTC commissioners that their content moderation policies do not disproportionally impact conservatives.

Berin Szoka, president of free-market think tank TechFreedom, said Cruz and Hawley’s demand for an FTC probe raised them to “new heights in hypocrisy.”

“It is, once again, utterly nauseating to see two Harvard educated [Federalist Society] members pervert the First Amendment into a sword by which to promote the agenda of their political tribe, rather than a shield against government meddling,” said Szoka, who previously testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the subject.

(Photo of Sen. Josh Hawley and Sen. Ted Cruz via Campus Reform.)

 

Andrew Feinberg is the White House Correspondent and Managing Editor for Breakfast Media. He rejoined BroadbandBreakfast.com in late 2016 after working as a staff writer at The Hill and as a freelance writer. He worked at BroadbandBreakfast.com from its founding in 2008 to 2010, first as a Reporter and then as Deputy Editor. He also covered the White House for Russia's Sputnik News from the beginning of the Trump Administration until he was let go for refusing to use White House press briefings to promote conspiracy theories, and later documented the experience in a story which set off a chain of events leading to Sputnik being forced to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Andrew's work has appeared in such publications as The Hill, Politico, Communications Daily, Washington Internet Daily, Washington Business Journal, The Sentinel Newspapers, FastCompany.TV, Mashable, and Silicon Angle.

FTC

Biden Looks to Bedoya to Replace Rohit Chopra on FTC, Report Says

Staunch privacy advocate Alvaro Bedoya appears to be Joe Biden’s pick for the FTC, Axios reports.

Published

on

Staunch privacy advocate Alvaro Bedoya appears to be Joe Biden's pick for the FTC

WASHINGTON, September 13, 2021—President Joe Biden is expected to bring on privacy stalwart Alvaro Bedoya for the open seat on the Federal Trade Commission, according to reporting from Axios.

Born in Peru and raised in New York, Bedoya attended Harvard University where he received his B.A. in Social Studies. He also holds a J.D. from Yale.

A longtime supporter of consumer privacy rights, Bedoya is the founding director of the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law. Previously, he served as chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. While working in the Senate, much of his work centered on location and biometric privacy with regard to consumer protections.

As it stands now, there are three Democrats and two Republicans on the commission. In January of 2021, Biden tapped Rohit Chopra to serve as the Director of the Consumer Protection Bureau. Though Chopra’s term on the FTC expired in 2019, the commission allows incumbent members to sit until a replacement is appointed—in this case, Bedoya.

The Washington Post quoted Republican FTC commissioner Noah Phillips speaking fondly of Bedoya. “I don’t think of him as a person who just gets up and rants about entities he doesn’t like,” and described him as “without fail as bright and thoughtful a person as you could find.”

Phillips has been broadly critical of the direction he feels the FTC is going and has historically criticized political firebrands on both sides of the aisle.

As Big Tech faces mounting criticism from both Republicans and Democrats with regard to privacy, misinformation, and alleged censorship, Bedoya will be entering a tumultuous era for the FTC.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

FTC Commissioner Phillips Warns About Shifting Direction of Agency

Noah Phillips voiced concern about the scope and practices of the Biden administration’s FTC.

Published

on

FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips

WASHINGTON, September 2, 2021 — Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips said at a Hudson Institute webinar on Monday that he’s concerned about the direction the competition watchdog is moving toward considering recent events.

Phillips said the left-leaning voices in Washington and the appointment of Lina Khan to chair the agency has left him wondering about the legacy of the last 40 years of competition regulation in America – which have been hallmarked by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. That legislation effectively gave the FTC the ability to review mergers and acquisitions before they were finalized, rather than afterward, which governed pre-legislation.

Under Biden-appointee Lina Khan, Phillips described how the FTC has done away with the process of early termination. In the past, this process made it unnecessary for every single company to provide advanced notice and advanced approval for mergers. “Historically, parties have been able to come to the agencies and say, ‘You’re not interested in this, can we just go ahead and finish our deal,’ and the agencies have said ‘yes.’”

He said this is no longer the case, and that every single merger must provide advanced notice and approval. “What we’re introducing is an inefficiency in the market for transactions that we have no interest in pursuing, just for the sake of it. I think that’s a problem,” he continued. “My concern is that it is making merger enforcement less effective, less efficient, and less fair.”

Phillips pointed to left-of-center and leftist voices in Congress, such as Rep. David Cicilline, D-New York, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, who, at the outset of the pandemic, wanted to ban all acquisitions and mergers—regardless of their merit. He described this view as falling outside of mainstream perspectives, but noteworthy nonetheless.

“I don’t think that is what most people believe,” Phillips remarked. “I don’t think that is what Hart-Scott-Rodino envisions.”

This webinar took place only a couple of weeks after Phillips spoke at the Technology Policy Institute’s 2021 Aspen Forum, where he voiced similar concerns, stating that he feared that this new direction would make it more difficult for the FTC to hear cases that it should, and defended the commission’s record against critics who said it was lax under the Trump Administration.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

Experts Say Congress’s New Antitrust Package is Philosophically Flawed and Politically Motivated

Antitrust and technology experts say that Congress’s new antitrust package is legally flawed and politically motivated.

Published

on

Pool photo of Lina Khan from April 2021 by Graeme Jennings

June 18, 2021—The package of five new antitrust bills introduced last Friday would “radically change how firms compete,” said a critic close to the technology industry.

The comments, by Aurelien Portuese, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in an interview with Broadband Breakfast, represent a sharp critiques of the bills by legal experts and tech industry executives.

The bills would not achieve their stated goals, Portuese said. He says that they would stifle competition and lead to less, not more innovation.

Portuese said that, because the bills target companies above a certain market cap and would only apply to those companies, they would lead to “a two-level playing field” in which the laws would apply to certain companies and not to others.

“These bills allow practices for some companies while prohibiting the very same practices to their rivals, and conversely, would prohibit some practices to some companies while allowing them for rivals.”

Because the measures were drafted to target a specific companies such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, they were a form of “overt discrimination.”

Apple will be regulated by the new laws, but their competitor in the music streaming industry, Spotify, will not. This would give Spotify a competitive advantage over Apple.

Antitrust law should be used to foster innovation

Antitrust policy should be employed to foster as much innovation as possible, and not simply break up large firms into smaller ones, said David Teece, executive chairman of the Berkeley Research Group, to an online panel hosted by ITIF.

For his part, Portuese said that antitrust law is a “question of leadership, not of law.” Currently, there are three active legal cases employing antitrust philosophy involving Google, Facebook, and Apple, all of which, he said, are being prosecuted under the current antitrust law.

These current antitrust tools are sufficient, he said, and the lack of antitrust actions taken by past administrations is a problem of enforcement, and not the legal framework itself.

Lina Khan, a longstanding critic of Big Tech, was appointed chairwomen of the FTC on Tuesday. As chairwoman, she will have considerable leeway in directing how and what the FTC regulates. That could mean a major shift in the commission’s enforcement on antitrust.

Portuese also made the point that tech innovation requires large capital expenditures. By specifically targeting the U.S.’s top firms and breaking them up, the overall amount of innovation that occurs in the technology industry will diminished, he said.

Enforcement for political gain

Samuel Palmisano, the former CEO of technology company IBM, said that he sees the new antitrust legislative proposals as less about competition policy and more about politics.

“We see both the right and the left wanting to break up media and social platforms because they don’t like what’s being published, or not published,” Palmisano said at the ITIF event. “There can be a legitimate debate about media fairness or Section 230, but antitrust isn’t the tool for that debate.”

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story incorrectly spelled the last name of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, as “Kahn.” The story has been corrected, and Broadband Breakfast apologizes for the error.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending