As House Republicans vocally denounce Big Tech in media appearances, many simultaneously use their power to impede legislative reform. Rep. Buck is acting.
Having lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years I can say without question they are destructive, parasitic and evil entities. Whether or not they are monopolies is a question that might interest lawyers but there cannot be any doubt these companies distort market incentives and corrupt public policy. I wonder if they would even go so far as to undermine our democracy and the basic rights and freedoms so many of our ancestors fought and died for. It’s as pathetic as it is sad. As a technology enthusiast I’m angered by the stifling of competition, which is the driver of innovation, and the amazing devices, gadgets, products and services they are stealing from all of us by preventing their development on the FREE market. My hat is off to Glenn and Representative Buck for facing down these thugs!
Glen is wonderful on so many topics--international affairs, free speech, the war machine, and so on. But I cringe when he wades into economics. He's prey to all the socialist idiocies of the left. He has no practical understanding of how businesses are built and people are employed. Any student of Tech could look back on the last 30 years and see the wisdom of Milton Friedman's belief that it's the free market that destroys monopolies, not the government. It wasn't the government that brought Microsoft's monopoly down. It was the internet, along with Apple and Google and other innovative companies. Government interference in the free market works as well as government interference in free expression.
Rep Buck stated that the big tech companies spend $50 million on lobbying. That's all you need to know to understand why nothing is being done, despite all the rhetoric.
1. Justice Clarence Thomas opined couple months ago discussing big tech censorship quite extensively. The case was regarding whether Trump was allowed to block people on Twitter and it being a 1st amendment violation. While the case was declared moot as Trump left office, Justice Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to discuss censorship. How politicians like Trump aren't allowed to block users on big tech but big tech is able to block and ban government employees and how this creates a weird power dynamic. Here's a couple excerpts:
"But whatever may be said of other industries, there is clear historical precedent for regulating transportation and communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers. Candeub 398–405. Telegraphs, for example, because they “resemble[d] railroad companies and other common carriers,” were “bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination." ... "Internet platforms of course have their own First Amendment interests, but regulations that might affect speech are valid if they would have been permissible at the time of the founding. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468 (2010). The long history in this country and in England of restricting the exclusion right of common carriers and places of public accommodation may save similar regulations today from triggering heightened scrutiny—especially where a restriction would not prohibit the company from speaking or force the company to endorse the speech." ... "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms. [I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of ”digital platforms." ... "For example, although a “private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,” Halleck, 587 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 6, 9), it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint. Ibid. Consider government threats. “People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 68 (1963). The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. See ibid.; Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982). Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital plat- form if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats. The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smoth- ered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them."
The last 2 points are important as Thomas is basically saying "give us a case which brings up these two questions and then we will have a deep look."
2. Totally agree with the republican RINOs who say one thing on TV while doing another or not doing anything at all. Lindsey Graham is a perfect example and why I can't stand Hannity. Lindsey kept going on Hannity and grandstand for 2 years about how he's gonna doo all these big things to hold the FBI and CIA accountable for the russiagate nonsense. Yet he didn't get anything done except a couple hearings where Rosenstein blatantly lied and nothing happened to him. Lindsey is one of the worst republicans imo.
3. You brought up the point about SCOTUS having ruled in the past that if a private actor is pressured by government that if they don't do something, then they will be punished, is a violation of 1st amendment. Have you looked at the recent Fauci emails, especially the ones with Zuckerberg (which are also redacted)? Fauci is the government and him working together with FB in building their "COVID dashboard" which censored many people, especially those talking about the lab leak theory as well as Ivermectin. This has to be a violation right?
4. One of your questions was regarding why Big Tech is hyper-liberal democrat supporters. While this is ideologically driven, one big point which didn't get raised was H1B visas. This is also why all the tech companies were so against Trump - he cut/tried to cut their supply of H1B visas - their primary labour supply. The immigrant folks who get brought in on H1B visas are basically exploited for work on lower wages. Liberals often think they are more virtuous for supporting H1B because companies like Apple and Google have lectured them about how H1B visas bring diversity. Anyone seriously thinks FAANG tech companies care about diversity? They care about low labour cost, employees who won't complain and won't report shady stuff going on in the company. H1B visas are perfect for that.
H1B visas is pretty much modern day slavery (bit hyperbole in a way) but it essentially gives full power over an immigrant to the employer because these employers have work rules that if you don't get promoted every 1-2 years, you get fired - which means H1B visa employees get deported back. So these immigrants end up working much harder for lower pay to not get deported. Meanwhile the companies get cheap labour while virtue signaling about diversity. This is also a reason why immigrants are hesitant to report work illegalities and thus the company prefer hiring them even more.
Here's another proof that this isn't about "diversity" or caring about immigrants but more about exploitation:
76% of the h1b go to Indians and 10% goes to China. Do you think this is about diversity? Does diversity only come from India and China? Source:
5. I agree with what Ken Buck is saying regarding people being too compacent and lazy. He rightly is telling people to start getting engaged and taking over school boards because if they don't, then the CRT bullshit will destroy America from the inside. Thankfully in the last couple months, many parents are finally starting to speak up and hopefully some take over those school boards too. The nation's largest teachers union has approved a plan to promote critical race theory in all 50 states and 14,000 local school districts. The argument that "critical race theory isn't in K-12 schools" is officially dead. The union has also approved funding for "increasing the implementation" of CRT in K-12 curricula and for attacking conservative groups who oppose CRT indoctrination. The teachers union has made critical race theory its #1 priority—and want to implement it nationwide.
Forgive me for being snide, but the Republicans and Democrats will seemingly use their rhetoric to please vast numbers of Americans, while stabbing the same people in the back. It allows them to pretend they're doing something, while using inaction as a forever talking point.
As with Climate Chaos, the Republican report that Rep Gaetz promised a few years ago (where is it?), hopefully the solution cannot be found in technology and *market* solutions.
Glenn, I subscribed to your site because you practice true journalism that is sorely lacking these days. I understand that video reaches a large audience, but it's not useful to me, and I suspect many others. I read faster than most people can speak intelligibly, and I'm not going to spend my valuable time watching a video. Please post transcripts for those of us that still exercise literacy.
I'm going to watch the video, but I did want to point out one thing. (First, I agree with you Glenn! And I hope Rep. Buck kicks some A$$.)
But thank-you for highlighting this! This is a serious issue, and I've been stumped about something. I'm a staunch conservative, who is open to other opinions, and have come to appreciate many of the perspectives that Glenn has to offer. However, I have been deeply puzzled by conservative protection of "big business" in all its forms.
Sure, I'm against excessive taxation as it has a trickle down effect on the cost of doing business. I'm also open for free expansion of business and praised President Clinton's instincts on a free and open (and untaxed) Internet. (I was working in the business at the time.)
However, somehow, Facebook, and the other tech giants, and their overwhelming power in the market place still hold some kind of magic power for some conservatives (like Kevin Williamson of National Review thinks that Facebook is the cat's meow, last I heard, though I fail to see why).
It's not just the censorship (and for the record, I'm not saying "free speech" SOOOO many people confused first amendment rights with censorship). Hint: Censorship can be done by *anyone* even you censoring yourself.
So, yes, obviously, these tech companies are censoring people. Some for legit reasons, others, not so legit. And, usually, the liberal response to such things (when countering the right leaning complaints) "Hey, go found your own twitter or facebook and let the owners of this tech do whatever they want!"
Yeah, like you can start a billion dollar competitor out of your basement. And, hey, if you do, then the tech giants will collude and knock you out of business anyway!
In any case, I want to highlight one particular example of the confusing state of our anti-trust laws, and how an article (which I read years ago and have lost the link to it) changed my mind on Amazon (who, I still probably spend $10k a year with...)
The thing is, Amazon is SO big, that any time they choose to go into a market (particularly in small business, but increasingly into even larger business, like going up against Wal-mart. Or ask Google or Oracle how they're doing in the virtual cloud business?) - Amazon de facto wins. They are overpowering. They are more than a conglomerate.
God forbid you happen to be selling anything - even on Amazon's reseller store, that Amazon decides to start selling on their own.
Yet, our anti-trust laws don't really protect sellers, do they? No, they are designed to protect consumers. So, it's going to be a beast of a journey to nail down Amazon since everything they're doing and designed to do is to deliver the cheapest price to the consumer.
Does it harm a consumer if Amazon starts making shirts, and pants and batteries, and speakers and they're all as good a quality as someone else's, and cheaper? Nope. But it could put hundreds of people out of business, but that's not really anti-trust law's problem, is it?
It's time we fix our anti-trust laws to cover those types of issues. Or really good lawyers who can figure out how to fix that practice.
And high minded conservatives need to also think in terms of the small business people who get squashed on a daily basis by the likes of Amazon.
The scandalous recent letter by two California House "lifers" and useless Democrats Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney to CEO's of cable companies are truly unparalleled and represents the rise of fascism in the US -- under a guise of "fighting fascism." All these multiple attacks are clearly carefully choreographed and coordinated -- easily predicted and well understood since we should always keep in mind that there is one huge elephant in the room:
The scam of the century - the now 5-year long Russia-gate hoax initiated by Obama/Biden administration. The bipartisan decade long major crimes and hoax against Syria are equally scandalous and finally being surfaced to the US population.
The Russia-gate hoax and two-impeachment “entertainments” were concocted by Obama/Hillary/Biden/Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jamie Ruskin, etc., etc. -- and their intelligence and DNC executives on behalf of their Wall Street and military and security industry donors, i.e., the War party. For them - censorship is mandatory.
Describing the big four's monopoly perch: "a position that enables them to write one set of rules for others, while they play by another, or to engage in a form of their own private quasi regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves.”--also spot on description of the political/media ruling class as manifest in everything they touch.
Good article. I have been noting this being a GOP'er myself. My own party won't get behind laws that will help break up big tech monopolies. Meanwhile those monopolies are working to break up the GOP. I just shake my head in disbelief. The GOP needs to step up here. As a whole I have not seen big problems with the laws proposed by the Dem's. Of course that Dem bill will not be passed by Dems either as I think this is all for show. Tech money if flowing into our leaders bank accounts and they have been bought off. They will be allowed to pretend to be doing something but I am sure Facebook, Google and the like have them on a short leash: you can pretend to do something but you will not be allowed to actually enact these laws. I am really disappointed by the GOP reluctance in particular since it is my "side". But I am a strong supporter of bipartisanship and would like the D's and R's get together and break these companies up. While I agree these companies can censor constitutionally, their reach is so great they are the public square now. At a minimum these companies need to be common carriers like the phone system. If the GOP cannot get behind this then I guess they are going to go back to being the pre-Trump GOP of only supporting big business and screw the working class. The Dem's have already have become the party of the rich and big business (which is a mistake in my view). And the GOP needs the working class supporters that Trump brought into the party. The GOP was given and opportunity for a viable coalition and it sounds like they are going to blow it by going back to their big business sycophancy. Big business by their words and deeds have shown they are aligned with the Democrats. Why these GOP reps are trying to protect these monopolies means that the big tech cash has bought them off as they have the Dems and nothing of significance will be done. And big tech will rule with impunity.
Thanks Glenn for this very substantive interview with a brave, intelligent and civilized guest (oh these strange times when we can no longer expect basic civility from a member of Congress "by default" :-) ).
If you don’t like liberal social media, then build your own social media.
Builds Parler, and it gets deplatformed.
Having lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years I can say without question they are destructive, parasitic and evil entities. Whether or not they are monopolies is a question that might interest lawyers but there cannot be any doubt these companies distort market incentives and corrupt public policy. I wonder if they would even go so far as to undermine our democracy and the basic rights and freedoms so many of our ancestors fought and died for. It’s as pathetic as it is sad. As a technology enthusiast I’m angered by the stifling of competition, which is the driver of innovation, and the amazing devices, gadgets, products and services they are stealing from all of us by preventing their development on the FREE market. My hat is off to Glenn and Representative Buck for facing down these thugs!
Glen is wonderful on so many topics--international affairs, free speech, the war machine, and so on. But I cringe when he wades into economics. He's prey to all the socialist idiocies of the left. He has no practical understanding of how businesses are built and people are employed. Any student of Tech could look back on the last 30 years and see the wisdom of Milton Friedman's belief that it's the free market that destroys monopolies, not the government. It wasn't the government that brought Microsoft's monopoly down. It was the internet, along with Apple and Google and other innovative companies. Government interference in the free market works as well as government interference in free expression.
Rep Buck stated that the big tech companies spend $50 million on lobbying. That's all you need to know to understand why nothing is being done, despite all the rhetoric.
“There was a huge gap between GOP rhetoric about the evils of Big Tech and the actions of House Republicans”
It’s almost as if most Republican politicians are like most Democratic politicians.
Sad.
Most politicians are whores, including Republicans.
1. Justice Clarence Thomas opined couple months ago discussing big tech censorship quite extensively. The case was regarding whether Trump was allowed to block people on Twitter and it being a 1st amendment violation. While the case was declared moot as Trump left office, Justice Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to discuss censorship. How politicians like Trump aren't allowed to block users on big tech but big tech is able to block and ban government employees and how this creates a weird power dynamic. Here's a couple excerpts:
"But whatever may be said of other industries, there is clear historical precedent for regulating transportation and communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers. Candeub 398–405. Telegraphs, for example, because they “resemble[d] railroad companies and other common carriers,” were “bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination." ... "Internet platforms of course have their own First Amendment interests, but regulations that might affect speech are valid if they would have been permissible at the time of the founding. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468 (2010). The long history in this country and in England of restricting the exclusion right of common carriers and places of public accommodation may save similar regulations today from triggering heightened scrutiny—especially where a restriction would not prohibit the company from speaking or force the company to endorse the speech." ... "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms. [I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of ”digital platforms." ... "For example, although a “private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,” Halleck, 587 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 6, 9), it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint. Ibid. Consider government threats. “People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 68 (1963). The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. See ibid.; Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982). Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital plat- form if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats. The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smoth- ered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them."
The last 2 points are important as Thomas is basically saying "give us a case which brings up these two questions and then we will have a deep look."
I would highly recommend reading his opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf
2. Totally agree with the republican RINOs who say one thing on TV while doing another or not doing anything at all. Lindsey Graham is a perfect example and why I can't stand Hannity. Lindsey kept going on Hannity and grandstand for 2 years about how he's gonna doo all these big things to hold the FBI and CIA accountable for the russiagate nonsense. Yet he didn't get anything done except a couple hearings where Rosenstein blatantly lied and nothing happened to him. Lindsey is one of the worst republicans imo.
3. You brought up the point about SCOTUS having ruled in the past that if a private actor is pressured by government that if they don't do something, then they will be punished, is a violation of 1st amendment. Have you looked at the recent Fauci emails, especially the ones with Zuckerberg (which are also redacted)? Fauci is the government and him working together with FB in building their "COVID dashboard" which censored many people, especially those talking about the lab leak theory as well as Ivermectin. This has to be a violation right?
4. One of your questions was regarding why Big Tech is hyper-liberal democrat supporters. While this is ideologically driven, one big point which didn't get raised was H1B visas. This is also why all the tech companies were so against Trump - he cut/tried to cut their supply of H1B visas - their primary labour supply. The immigrant folks who get brought in on H1B visas are basically exploited for work on lower wages. Liberals often think they are more virtuous for supporting H1B because companies like Apple and Google have lectured them about how H1B visas bring diversity. Anyone seriously thinks FAANG tech companies care about diversity? They care about low labour cost, employees who won't complain and won't report shady stuff going on in the company. H1B visas are perfect for that.
H1B visas is pretty much modern day slavery (bit hyperbole in a way) but it essentially gives full power over an immigrant to the employer because these employers have work rules that if you don't get promoted every 1-2 years, you get fired - which means H1B visa employees get deported back. So these immigrants end up working much harder for lower pay to not get deported. Meanwhile the companies get cheap labour while virtue signaling about diversity. This is also a reason why immigrants are hesitant to report work illegalities and thus the company prefer hiring them even more.
Here's another proof that this isn't about "diversity" or caring about immigrants but more about exploitation:
76% of the h1b go to Indians and 10% goes to China. Do you think this is about diversity? Does diversity only come from India and China? Source:
https://www.gadgetsnow.com/slideshows/h1b-visa-these-countries-got-the-most-approvals/india/photolist/64098647.cms
Democrats use immigrants as pawns and then abandon us when push comes to shove.
These 2 videos explain it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFYj8Sg3x_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-3FYea07pc
5. I agree with what Ken Buck is saying regarding people being too compacent and lazy. He rightly is telling people to start getting engaged and taking over school boards because if they don't, then the CRT bullshit will destroy America from the inside. Thankfully in the last couple months, many parents are finally starting to speak up and hopefully some take over those school boards too. The nation's largest teachers union has approved a plan to promote critical race theory in all 50 states and 14,000 local school districts. The argument that "critical race theory isn't in K-12 schools" is officially dead. The union has also approved funding for "increasing the implementation" of CRT in K-12 curricula and for attacking conservative groups who oppose CRT indoctrination. The teachers union has made critical race theory its #1 priority—and want to implement it nationwide.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1411473898491678720
I'm convinced this is the biggest issue of our time.
Forgive me for being snide, but the Republicans and Democrats will seemingly use their rhetoric to please vast numbers of Americans, while stabbing the same people in the back. It allows them to pretend they're doing something, while using inaction as a forever talking point.
As with Climate Chaos, the Republican report that Rep Gaetz promised a few years ago (where is it?), hopefully the solution cannot be found in technology and *market* solutions.
Glenn, I subscribed to your site because you practice true journalism that is sorely lacking these days. I understand that video reaches a large audience, but it's not useful to me, and I suspect many others. I read faster than most people can speak intelligibly, and I'm not going to spend my valuable time watching a video. Please post transcripts for those of us that still exercise literacy.
I'm going to watch the video, but I did want to point out one thing. (First, I agree with you Glenn! And I hope Rep. Buck kicks some A$$.)
But thank-you for highlighting this! This is a serious issue, and I've been stumped about something. I'm a staunch conservative, who is open to other opinions, and have come to appreciate many of the perspectives that Glenn has to offer. However, I have been deeply puzzled by conservative protection of "big business" in all its forms.
Sure, I'm against excessive taxation as it has a trickle down effect on the cost of doing business. I'm also open for free expansion of business and praised President Clinton's instincts on a free and open (and untaxed) Internet. (I was working in the business at the time.)
However, somehow, Facebook, and the other tech giants, and their overwhelming power in the market place still hold some kind of magic power for some conservatives (like Kevin Williamson of National Review thinks that Facebook is the cat's meow, last I heard, though I fail to see why).
It's not just the censorship (and for the record, I'm not saying "free speech" SOOOO many people confused first amendment rights with censorship). Hint: Censorship can be done by *anyone* even you censoring yourself.
So, yes, obviously, these tech companies are censoring people. Some for legit reasons, others, not so legit. And, usually, the liberal response to such things (when countering the right leaning complaints) "Hey, go found your own twitter or facebook and let the owners of this tech do whatever they want!"
Yeah, like you can start a billion dollar competitor out of your basement. And, hey, if you do, then the tech giants will collude and knock you out of business anyway!
In any case, I want to highlight one particular example of the confusing state of our anti-trust laws, and how an article (which I read years ago and have lost the link to it) changed my mind on Amazon (who, I still probably spend $10k a year with...)
The thing is, Amazon is SO big, that any time they choose to go into a market (particularly in small business, but increasingly into even larger business, like going up against Wal-mart. Or ask Google or Oracle how they're doing in the virtual cloud business?) - Amazon de facto wins. They are overpowering. They are more than a conglomerate.
God forbid you happen to be selling anything - even on Amazon's reseller store, that Amazon decides to start selling on their own.
Yet, our anti-trust laws don't really protect sellers, do they? No, they are designed to protect consumers. So, it's going to be a beast of a journey to nail down Amazon since everything they're doing and designed to do is to deliver the cheapest price to the consumer.
Does it harm a consumer if Amazon starts making shirts, and pants and batteries, and speakers and they're all as good a quality as someone else's, and cheaper? Nope. But it could put hundreds of people out of business, but that's not really anti-trust law's problem, is it?
It's time we fix our anti-trust laws to cover those types of issues. Or really good lawyers who can figure out how to fix that practice.
And high minded conservatives need to also think in terms of the small business people who get squashed on a daily basis by the likes of Amazon.
The scandalous recent letter by two California House "lifers" and useless Democrats Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney to CEO's of cable companies are truly unparalleled and represents the rise of fascism in the US -- under a guise of "fighting fascism." All these multiple attacks are clearly carefully choreographed and coordinated -- easily predicted and well understood since we should always keep in mind that there is one huge elephant in the room:
The scam of the century - the now 5-year long Russia-gate hoax initiated by Obama/Biden administration. The bipartisan decade long major crimes and hoax against Syria are equally scandalous and finally being surfaced to the US population.
The Russia-gate hoax and two-impeachment “entertainments” were concocted by Obama/Hillary/Biden/Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jamie Ruskin, etc., etc. -- and their intelligence and DNC executives on behalf of their Wall Street and military and security industry donors, i.e., the War party. For them - censorship is mandatory.
Describing the big four's monopoly perch: "a position that enables them to write one set of rules for others, while they play by another, or to engage in a form of their own private quasi regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves.”--also spot on description of the political/media ruling class as manifest in everything they touch.
Tweeter complained when (if I remember correctly) Nigeria banned Tweeter -- a nice response to Tweeter was "create another Nigeria" ;-))
Good article. I have been noting this being a GOP'er myself. My own party won't get behind laws that will help break up big tech monopolies. Meanwhile those monopolies are working to break up the GOP. I just shake my head in disbelief. The GOP needs to step up here. As a whole I have not seen big problems with the laws proposed by the Dem's. Of course that Dem bill will not be passed by Dems either as I think this is all for show. Tech money if flowing into our leaders bank accounts and they have been bought off. They will be allowed to pretend to be doing something but I am sure Facebook, Google and the like have them on a short leash: you can pretend to do something but you will not be allowed to actually enact these laws. I am really disappointed by the GOP reluctance in particular since it is my "side". But I am a strong supporter of bipartisanship and would like the D's and R's get together and break these companies up. While I agree these companies can censor constitutionally, their reach is so great they are the public square now. At a minimum these companies need to be common carriers like the phone system. If the GOP cannot get behind this then I guess they are going to go back to being the pre-Trump GOP of only supporting big business and screw the working class. The Dem's have already have become the party of the rich and big business (which is a mistake in my view). And the GOP needs the working class supporters that Trump brought into the party. The GOP was given and opportunity for a viable coalition and it sounds like they are going to blow it by going back to their big business sycophancy. Big business by their words and deeds have shown they are aligned with the Democrats. Why these GOP reps are trying to protect these monopolies means that the big tech cash has bought them off as they have the Dems and nothing of significance will be done. And big tech will rule with impunity.
Thanks Glenn for this very substantive interview with a brave, intelligent and civilized guest (oh these strange times when we can no longer expect basic civility from a member of Congress "by default" :-) ).