Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses Technology

Congress Blew Its Last Chance To Curb Big Tech's Power (theverge.com) 46

Posted by msmash from the where-things-stand dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Blew Its Last Chance To Curb Big Tech's Power More

Congress Blew Its Last Chance To Curb Big Tech's Power

Comments Filter:

  • Congress blowing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkRookie2 ( 5551422 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @11:08AM (#63145150)
    Business as normal in DC it seems. At least something is normal in these crazy times we all live in.
    • Yep. Did anyone expect a different outcome?
      • The people who think voting somehow matters

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          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)

      by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @12:02PM (#63145230)

      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)

        by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @12:47PM (#63145326) Homepage Journal

        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?

  • Our government is functionally incompetent.

  • Micromanaging is not the answer (Score:4)

    by RazorSharp ( 1418697 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @11:23AM (#63145178)

    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)

      by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @11:36AM (#63145192)

      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.

      • 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)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        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?

  • Big tech shouldn't have the power to control every little thing, but I certainly don't want the government to have it either. 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.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        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.

        • 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)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @11:40AM (#63145204)

    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.

    • 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)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @12:00PM (#63145228)

    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.

  • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

  • Silly headline. Someone can re-submit a new bill any ol' time.

    • 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

  • "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?

  • 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.

    • Say a company that once yelled "think different" is now quietly insisting that all of your pictures and videos are now belong to us and our customers only. You can't share those baby pics with your grandmother if they don't buy into our pay-walled -hardware/software-scheme. Can't use an Android to access iMessage and iPhoto/Photo etc... unless you purchase their hardware. Eff that. I'll pay for access but as a member of a different hardware ecosystem. I'll think different. If they made a non-standard-

  • Government corruption supporting Anti-competitiveness.
    And where is Federal Trade Commission on anti-competitiveness?

  • 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.

  • The man is a stuffed corpse kept in office by a geographic but not numerical majority of the state and I am pretty sure they are doping him like a racehorse just to keep him upright when he's been taken out of his vat of preservative pickle brine. He'll put a scrawl on just about anything you can bribe his aids to put in front of him. What I'm trying to say is I wouldn't put too much hope in any bill he signed on to being in the people's best interest.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you guys know what you're doing, or are you just hacking?

Close