Congress Blew Its Last Chance To Curb Big Tech's Power (theverge.com) 46
Tech platforms spent millions opposing sweeping antitrust reforms, and their lobbyists may soon be able to breathe a giant sigh of relief -- at least for the next few years. From a report: Early Tuesday morning, the House Committee on Appropriations released a more than 4,000-page bill stacked with congressional priorities. But notably, a pair of antitrust bills that received broad bipartisan support was not included in the final measure. The bills were approved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee nearly a year ago, but they haven't yet been brought up for a floor vote. As part of a last-ditch effort to approve the bills, lawmakers tried to attach them to the must-pass spending bill, but the effort did not receive the backing necessary from congressional leadership.
For more than three years, lawmakers have held dozens of hearings and introduced a number of bipartisan bills to reform the tech industry. But the Open App Markets Act (OAMA) and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICO) saw the most support, despite expensive lobbying campaigns from tech companies opposing them. Sen. Richard Blumenthal's (D-CT) timely OAMA would ban tech giants like Google and Apple from strong-arming third-party developers to enter into anticompetitive agreements to be hosted on their company app stores. The AICO, spearheaded by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), would have stopped Big Tech companies from providing preferential treatment to their own products and services across their platforms.
For more than three years, lawmakers have held dozens of hearings and introduced a number of bipartisan bills to reform the tech industry. But the Open App Markets Act (OAMA) and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICO) saw the most support, despite expensive lobbying campaigns from tech companies opposing them. Sen. Richard Blumenthal's (D-CT) timely OAMA would ban tech giants like Google and Apple from strong-arming third-party developers to enter into anticompetitive agreements to be hosted on their company app stores. The AICO, spearheaded by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), would have stopped Big Tech companies from providing preferential treatment to their own products and services across their platforms.
Congress blowing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It is the other way around my friend. As soon as it is not profitable to work as the FBIs brains, they will stop working with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't decide if this is a sad FP branch, but it's worth noting that almost all of the critter were just reelected. Last traces of bipartisan agreement are on protecting incumbents from the consequences of their incompetence.
I sure wish I could /s that.
I blame the advertisers and the psychologists who enabled them... Recent rant on the topic: https://wt.social/post/us-poli... [wt.social]
Re:Congress blowing (Score:4, Interesting)
People acting like Congress just forgot to do something. The real reason is that these platforms have been seen as way more malleable then first glace provided. With Musk's purchase of Twitter, the dilution there and things like Parler/Truth Social starting to gain traction for the audience it was meant for. There's less a pressing matter to reign in these social media networks. There's a slow waking up for people that there is just no one true social media platform and people don't mind have five or six different platforms they check.
Antitrust legislation is something Congress just routinely shies away from unless they're absolutely pressed for the matter. And the public's interest in the matter has pretty much evaporated and so too has Congress. The entire drama with Twitter has done it's true goal. Muddle the picture on social media giants.
Additionally, with the EU mostly doing the work at the moment. The US can mostly sit back watch websites implement EU regulations and then go, "well if they were serious about privacy they would turn that EU stuff on for the US". Which is way more in line with Congress' usually mantra "blame everyone else for issues they can solve." Sort of how the fiscal cliff is always Congress sending way more dollars out than receiving in and Congress can increased the allowed debt to incur and call it a day, BUT NO! For some reason Congress has to make it everyone else's fault. Because that's just how they roll.
So this isn't Congress just forgot to do something. They're seeing the market do something and are more than willing to take a watch and see. Because the last thing they want to do is something that people can directly blame them for. Especially if the industry in question is so spastic that given twenty or so years it just takes care of itself. My niece's kid is like seventeen and pretty much none of them use Facebook and pretty much use TikTok. I'm starting to feel like social media platform is just going to be a generational thing because from what I've seen (very limited, very anecdotal) is that "old" people use Facebook/Twitter/etc platforms from 200X era and younger people use platforms from the 201X era more often. And likely there's going to be platforms coming out during the 202X period and now eight to ten year olds will eventually prefer those networks once they hit 18 to 22 years of age. Wash, rinse, repeat until everyone gets tired of this nonsense.
Just to be clear... (Score:4, Funny)
So this isn't Congress just forgot to do something. They're seeing the market do something and are more than willing to take a watch and see.
Just to be clear, you're saying that Congress took a nuanced approached based on their analysis of the market.
And not, for example, that Congress allowed themselves to be swayed by lobbyist donations which just happens to align to a nuanced, market-based approach by accident.
That's what you're saying, yes?
Looks like we rely on Europe (Score:2)
Re:Looks like we rely on Europe (Score:5, Informative)
The best Congress money can buy.
Re: (Score:1)
It's written in a prose and tone, as if the readership is in agreement with author even before the article was written (ie. "preaching to the converted").
Big tech needs curbing for the same reason (Score:2)
Biden actually changed that, so that actual competition will be considered, but it's a bit like closing the barn
Micromanaging is not the answer (Score:4)
The problem with these bills is that they try to micromanage tech problems away instead of dealing with the real problems. We need legislation to prevent large mergers and acquisitions from happening unless specifically approved by a regulatory agency. Consolidation is what kills competition.
Re: Micromanaging is not the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
unless specifically approved
We already have that. The FTC, DOJ and others have an opportunity to deny mergers if there might be demonsterable harm to consumers. The problem is that the investment banking industry (the folks who put together these mergers) have an army of economists ready to testify that no harm will be done. And the government agencies, in comparison, have squat.
Re: Micromanaging is not the answer (Score:2)
What I mean is that, should they be denied, they are actually denied. Right now the approval process has no teeth. Allowing corporate mergers should be the exception when one business is failing. Even then, it should be a last resort.
Basically, the onus to prove a merger or acquisition is necessary should be on the corporations. The government shouldnâ(TM)t have to prove the harm in consolidation to prevent it, we should assume consolidation is bad unless presented ample evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
Well micromanaging is going to be the answer. Unless Congress passes legislation to curb "big techs" abuse of power, the states eventually do it. I predicted this would happen year ago and there have already been attempts. Florida and Texas have already attempted to regulate these companies. What happens other states start passing similar laws?
Good. Keep their mits off it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, section 230, which insulates media providers from creators liabilities, is the only reason anyone can afford to have comment sections. Keep government out of media. (Social and other.)
Section 230 was meant for sites like Slashdot and services like USENET, with minimal moderation and no hidden algorithm deciding which content gets eyeballs. IMHO you cease to be a neutral publisher when you apply an algorithm to user created content. If you want that liability shield you should have to present content in the order it was created, no secret "prioritization" or any other changes to the selection criteria should be allowed.
Users can choose to self-sort on other attributes, as you can on Sl
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 was meant for sites like Slashdot and services like USENET, with minimal moderation and no hidden algorithm deciding which content gets eyeballs. IMHO you cease to be a neutral publisher when you apply an algorithm to user created content.
This is exactly what I've been saying for years. Remove the shields that protect large social media sites from legal liability if they alter posts. The whole purpose of section 230 was to protect common carriers. If you alter posts, including hiding them or deleting them, then you are a editorial site and should not be protected by section 230.
Basically, social media sites should not be allowed to regulate speech unless such speech is illegal and be free of civil labilities.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole purpose of section 230 was to protect common carriers. If you alter posts, including hiding them or deleting them, then you are a editorial site and should not be protected by section 230.
Basically, social media sites should not be allowed to regulate speech unless such speech is illegal and be free of civil labilities.
False. According to the people who wrote section 230, the purpose was to encourage censorship of vulgarity, obscenity, offensive and inappropriate content.
4000 pages? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's your problem. How about writing single issue bills? So some critical regulatory issue doesn't get dropped in a debate over a Furbish lousewort.
Re: (Score:2)
There's your problem. How about writing single issue bills? So some critical regulatory issue doesn't get dropped in a debate over a Furbish lousewort.
And my understanding is that's exactly what they did. And the standalone bills didn't pass. Personally, I'm fine with bills not getting stuffed into omnibus grab-bags where there isn't time to debate the issues.
Prescient? (Score:3)
I used to think Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" was just an interesting and exciting dystopian SF novel. But the more I look at where the world seems to be going, the more I think the book was an accurate prediction of the world socio-political-economic landscape in the not-too-distant future.
Question though on the OAMA? (Score:2)
Article states the OAMA would ban tech giants like Google and Apple from strong-arming third-party developers to enter into anticompetitive agreements to be hosted on their company app stores.
Fine, but has this really been an issue, or is this more of a "we should write a law to prevent this from theoretically happening" situation?
Maybe I'm just ignorant or forgetting a well-known scenario that prompted this legislation? But I can't think of a situation where Apple or Google said, "You can't put that app o
Re: (Score:2)
There's also been a fair amount of whinging over Apple having a "most favored customer" clause (Where if you charge a lower price somewhere else, Apple is entitled to that price.) in some of their contracts. The government's even gotten in on that act a time or two... quite hypocritically, as MFC is usually a requirement to sell to the government itself on the GSA schedules.
Re: (Score:2)
But I can't think of a situation where Apple or Google said, "You can't put that app on our app store to distribute unless you sign this agreement we wrote up for you that prevents you from doing X and Y!" ?
Specifically, Apple and Google prevent you from using another payment processor other than their own, and then they charge quite a bit of money to use their payment processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just ignorant or forgetting a well-known scenario that prompted this legislation? But I can't think of a situation where Apple or Google said, "You can't put that app on our app store to distribute unless you sign this agreement we wrote up for you that prevents you from doing X and Y!" ?
I'm sorry, I'm half motivated to give you a -1 Astroturfer / Anchoring bias, but I'll post instead:
Have you even read their ToS / EULAs??? I mean yeah no-one actually reads them, but come the fuck on.
It's widely known that iOS prohibits third-party developers from using third party payment services. iOS used to prohibit offering a competitor to Safari, using JIT / HLE code, amongst other things.
Google prohibits apps on it's store that use API levels that it alone decides are "too low." Even if those
Not the last chance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But can you PASS anything of such significance with industry opposition?
NO.
1 party is almost entirely corrupt; this should not be news but an amazing number of people are unaware 1 party has changed from it's history of typical corruption and philosophically aligning to the wealthy (where the term "right hand man" meant with the king turning into right side of the room due to fights breaking out with the left side of the room...like children.) Today we have cowardly toadies who prostitute themselves out to
You keep using that term (Score:2)
"Congress Blew Its Last Chance..."
"... and their lobbyists may soon be able to breathe a giant sigh of relief -- at least for the next few years."
You keep using that phrase - I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not a "last chance" if more chances will occur in the future, dummy. Did you quit elementary school early to become a blogger?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey now, be nice. Elementary school was their last chance to get a good education and they failed.
Nothing to do with tech (Score:2)
The fundamental problem has nothing to do with tech. It has to do with company size.
Companies above a certain size have too much wealth, influence and power - they can buy politicians wholesale. It doesn't matter whether it's a bank or a tech company. Anti-trust law needs to be extended to impose a maximum size, above which companies must divest.
That size needs to be pretty small - certainly far smaller than the current giants. If you were to measure size by annual revenue, a limit of maybe $10 billion.
Software that enforces a hardware walled garden? (Score:2)
There is really only one way to see this. (Score:1)
Government corruption supporting Anti-competitiveness.
And where is Federal Trade Commission on anti-competitiveness?
And this is bad...? (Score:2)
The AICO, spearheaded by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), would have stopped Big Tech companies from providing preferential treatment to their own products and services across their platforms.
I don't know anything about the the Open App Market bill. The AICO sounds like a mess. I mean, what retailer doesn't prominently promote their own store-branded products these days?
I think I'm fine with it not passing.
Speaking as a Chuck Grassley constituent... (Score:2)