Source Code: Your daily look at what matters in tech.
To give you the best possible experience, this site uses cookies. If you continue browsing. you accept our use of cookies. You can review our privacy policy to find out more about the cookies we use.
yesEmily BirnbaumNone
December 16, 2020
Lawmakers are pushing for an amendment to the end-of-year spending bill that would bar the U.S. from including Section 230-like language in future trade deals, Protocol has learned.
The push comes as the U.S. is nearing multiple trade deals that would export the social media liability shield to other countries, despite resistance from key lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have argued the U.S. shouldn't enshrine the controversial law in trade agreements while Congress is actively considering reforming it.
Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Republican Rep. Greg Steube are circulating a letter calling for an amendment to the omnibus bill that would restrict the U.S. Trade Representative from negotiating, enforcing or agreeing to Section 230-style language in future deals. It's an explicit effort to ding Big Tech in the final hours of this congressional session, and it comes on the heels of President Trump's effort to repeal Section 230 in a separate must-pass defense spending bill, the National Defense Authorization Act.
"Please join Reps. Schakowsky and Steube in supporting a bipartisan amendment to stand up to big tech and promote clean international trade deals," the letter reads, according to a draft obtained by Protocol. It is currently circulating among congressional offices, and it's unclear how many lawmakers will sign on.
"This amendment would prevent the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) from giving more handouts to big tech companies by blocking any Ambassador from continuing to promote this misguided and misapplied law in any future trade negotiations," it continues. "There is bipartisan agreement that Section 230 is overdue for reform; so why on earth is the United States Trade Representative looking to export this failed policy to our trading partners?"
It's unclear if the congressional leaders finalizing the $1.4 trillion omnibus spending package will agree to include the amendment. There's often hesitation in Congress to reform trade or tax law at the eleventh hour through must-pass packages.
Schakowsky's office is currently in conversation with House appropriators to see if the amendment can be included in the bill, which is set to be filed later today.
A Democratic House aide said there's likely more political will from GOP members to get behind the amendment after Trump's prior push.
"[Section] 230 reform might be more difficult to do in a bipartisan way," the aide said, but there might be room to "agree it shouldn't be in trade deals." The aide added: "Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered and this is the house tech built by putting this in there."
Trump's Section 230 repeal effort seems destined to fail after Congress passed the NDAA without any Section 230 language by veto-proof margins. But there's still a possibility that this narrower last-minute amendment could make it through the omnibus bill, which has to pass this week.
Emily Birnbaum
Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.
Big Tech benefits from Biden’s sweeping immigration actions
Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai praised President Biden's immigration actions, which read like a tech industry wishlist.
Newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden signed two immigration-related executive orders on Wednesday.
Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
January 20, 2021
Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.
January 20, 2021
Immediately after being sworn in as president Wednesday, Joe Biden signed two pro-immigration executive orders and delivered an immigration bill to Congress that reads like a tech industry wishlist. The move drew enthusiastic praise from tech leaders, including Apple CEO Tim Cook and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai.
President Biden nullified several of former-President Trump's most hawkish immigration policies. His executive orders reversed the so-called "Muslim ban" and instructed the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to preserve the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, which the Trump administration had sought to end. He also sent an expansive immigration reform bill to Congress that would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented individuals and make it easier for foreign U.S. graduates with STEM degrees to stay in the United States, among other provisions.
<p>Biden's Day One moves suggest that immigration reform will be one of the key areas for allyship between Silicon Valley and the Biden administration over the next several years. The industry is sorely in need of common ground as Democrats pledge to use their power over Congress and the White House to crack down on Big Tech. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p>"We welcome President Biden's commitment to pursuing comprehensive immigration reform that reflects the American values of justice, fairness and dignity," said Cook in a statement to Protocol. "This effort will strengthen American communities and the pathways to opportunity this country has long fostered." </p><p>Cook, who is the chair of Business Roundtable's immigration committee, said he looked forward to working with Democrats and Republicans on a "permanent solution for Dreamers that includes a path to citizenship."</p><p>"We applaud @POTUS's quick action on COVID relief, the Paris Climate Accord, and immigration reform," Pichai <a href="https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/1352021111479832576?s=21" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tweeted</a> Wednesday. "Google has supported action on these important issues & we look forward to working with the new administration to help the US recover from the pandemic + grow our economy."</p><p>An Uber spokesperson also affirmed the company's support for President Biden's actions. "At Uber, we have long supported positive immigration reform and an effective system that upholds core American values," the spokesperson said. "Uber will continue to support Dreamers, and we welcome the new Administration's effort to reform our nation's immigration system."</p><p>The tech industry, which relies heavily on foreign workers, has spent the last four years <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/08/31/tech-industry-prepares-new-trump-fight-over-daca-dreamer-protection-program/622897001/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">battling with the Trump administration</a> over efforts to shut down vital talent pipelines from countries including India, China and Iran. Over the last four years, tech giants have filed <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Business/dreamers-embody-apples-innovation-strategy-apple-ceo-tim/story?id=66030999" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">amicus briefs</a> in high-profile <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/1/16/21069827/twitter-microsoft-linkedin-public-charge-trump-immigration-tech-companies" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">court cases</a> and lobbied in favor of opening up U.S. borders to high-skilled workers. Despite protestations from Silicon Valley leaders, the Trump administration continually added uncertainty to the H-1B visa application process, resulting in significant backlogs. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p>Biden's immigration bill would put money towards clearing visa backlogs, eliminate visa caps on certain countries and make it easier for people on temporary work visas to get green cards. Perhaps most significantly, it would immediately give the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. a pathway to become citizens. </p><p>The executive orders on DACA and the Muslim ban will immediately appease immigration advocates, including those inside the tech industry, but the toughest battle still lies ahead: rallying support in Congress for immigration reform, which has failed for years. Still, there may be some in the Republican party who are willing to work with the Biden administration on key pillars of the proposal. On Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was a leading player in immigration talks during the Obama years and a top Trump ally, told CBS he is open to creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.</p><p>"What we are really looking for is making sure there is congressional action and there is a legislative solution," said Karolina Filipiak, senior director of government affairs at the Information Technology Industry Council, a tech trade group. "We don't want to be in the same position four years from now or eight years from now [with] a new administration that could rescind the program." </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><p>Companies including Facebook and Google are hoping to work with lawmakers in Congress to create bipartisan support for reform, particularly as they face regulatory headwinds of their own. </p>
Keep Reading
Show less
Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.
Politics
Is this the future of the FTC?
In conversation with Protocol, Commissioner Becca Slaughter, whose name has been floated as a possible FTC chair, laid out her priorities for the next four years.
FTC commissioner Becca Slaughter may be President Biden's pick for FTC chair.
Photo: David Becker/Getty Images
January 20, 2021
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
January 20, 2021
Becca Slaughter, a commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission, made a name for herself last year when she famously breastfed her newborn baby during video testimony before the Senate, raising awareness about the plight of working parents during the pandemic.
But lately, Slaughter's name has been circulating for other reasons: She's a likely candidate to be President Joe Biden's pick for FTC chair, an appointment that would put Slaughter at the head of antitrust investigations into tech giants, including Facebook.
<p>Biden has yet to formally announce his selection. But this week, Slaughter took some time to speak at <a href="https://youtu.be/UFksDi3ygyU" target="_blank">a Protocol event</a> about the FTC's Facebook case, how antitrust enforcement can be "anti-racist" and what she hopes to see the FTC prioritize these next four years — whether she's in charge or not.</p><p><em>This interview has been lightly edited.</em></p><p><strong>It's indisputable that in the last few weeks since the Capitol riot, we've seen tech giants from Facebook to Amazon taking more action on dangerous speech on their platforms than ever before. Everyone's talking about regulation, but obviously any government regulation having to do with speech is a really dicey area. What do you anticipate the Biden administration's approach will be to this, and what are the appropriate legislative and regulatory remedies here? </strong></p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p>I can't speak to the president's plans, but I do think what we're seeing is, on the one hand, eminently appropriate action being taken by the companies to stop violence. I am concerned as a citizen that that actually came too late, and it might have been much better taken much earlier. But at the same time, we're seeing really important questions surface about the fact that those decisions are lying in the hands of private companies with enormous market power. The decisions can be correct, while at the same time, we can take a step back and say: What does this tell us about the state of our markets that these really important conversations and decisions are governed entirely by individual companies with enormous market share?</p><p><strong>What are some ways the FTC, in particular, can respond to that?</strong></p><p>Within our mandate is antitrust law. One thing I've found really interesting is a lot of the voices that are decrying the actions of the platforms to remove some of this dangerous content are the same ones who resist government antitrust intervention. I think we have to be mindful of the fact that we have laws in place, and we need to be vigorously enforcing those laws that address outsized market share. The FTC has at least one big lawsuit pending on this topic. Colorado Attorney General <a href="https://www.protocol.com/Politics/google-phil-weiser-attorney-general" target="_self">Phil Weiser</a> is leading another one. We will continue to do investigations and bring cases that address misuse of market power under our antitrust laws.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p><strong><strong>Y</strong>ou mentioned the FTC case against Facebook. When you brought that suit, and a number of states brought a similar suit, Facebook <a href="https://www.protocol.com/facebook-antitrust-zuckerberg" target="_self">responded</a> by saying the FTC is looking at all of these past mergers and setting a standard where no company that had a merger settled in the past can be sure it will be permanent. What is your response to that criticism from Facebook?</strong></p><p>I don't find it particularly persuasive. That we've brought one lawsuit that seeks to address two, among many, mergers that happened as part of an ongoing course of conduct does not suggest all mergers in all industries for all companies are forever in legal uncertainty. That is beyond a stretch. </p><p>What we have to do, as enforcers, and what we do in this case, is look at the particular facts at issue and the particular conduct at issue. And it is the case under the law that when the FTC or the Department of Justice review mergers in advance, we don't clear mergers. We don't approve mergers in advance. What we have an opportunity to do is to say: At this moment, are we going to take effort to block the merger? And in fact, in the occasions where we do the investigations and decline to take effort, we don't say we will never take action. We say: Right now, we're not going to take action, but that does not mean if we later understand this conduct to have been illegal we are precluded from bringing a suit. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><p>So that should be a disincentive to companies to enter into conduct, whether it's mergers or other conduct, that's illegal. That's what we want to disincentivize, and the threat of future lawsuits is an important part of that incentive structure. </p><p><strong>Beyond the Facebook suit, what do you think the priority of this FTC ought to be, and are there any big mistakes over the last four years that need to be corrected?</strong></p><p>Well, I can tell you what my priorities are. First, I think we do need to be thinking, like everyone across the government is right now, about pandemic response. COVID touches on a lot of areas of the FTC's mandate. There are some obvious ones, like work we've done to stop scams and phony cures, but some that are less obvious, including thinking about the effects of market concentration on, for example, supply chain resiliency. I think we need to be thinking about how all of our lives have moved digitally and the implications that has for privacy and data issues. </p><p>The second thing I would say is a huge priority for me has been making sure that our enforcement efforts continue and sharpen in our long, arduous and very large national task of being anti-racist. So I want us to be, in our enforcement efforts on marginalized communities, focusing on cases where harm disproportionately falls on people of color, whether that is as workers or as consumers. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="4">
</div>
</div></p><p>The third, generally, is I think we need to focus on being really strategic with the resources that we have. That means bringing cases that have big effects and can create deterrence across markets, rather than counting how many cases we bring or how many dollars we get. I want us to think very carefully about how each federal dollar we spend can best effectuate deterrence so we don't have to spend more federal dollars bringing the same sort of cases. </p><p>To the extent that I think there are things we could have done better over the last four years, there are a number of cases where I had dissented, because I thought that our resolutions, while they were good enforcement resolutions, didn't go far enough on that deterrence front. I'm concerned that we're going to end up back at the table with the same companies with the same problems if we are not bringing cases and really fighting for the outcome that will best protect consumers from having the same problems again. </p><p><strong>I want to go back to what you said about the anti-racism work. Can you give us an example of that?</strong></p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="5">
</div>
</div></p><p>We brought a really important case under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act last year involving auto financing for violations of fair lending rules and discriminatory behavior on financing. That's one kind of case. This is something we're very comfortable talking about in the consumer protection sphere. We are less comfortable talking about it as a general matter in the antitrust space. But for me, antitrust enforcement is fundamentally about market structure and making sure markets are fair. And one thing we know statistically is that our markets are currently structured in a way that is unfair and unequal for communities of color. So when we make decisions to do enforcement in certain places or not do enforcement in certain places, those decisions are never neutral. They will either help make our society less unequal or they will reinforce existing inequality. </p><p>So the first step for us, from my perspective, is just opening our eyes and understanding the effects of those decisions better. When we choose to bring a case — let's say, for example, a hospital enforcement case, because health care is an area where we know there are huge disparities in access and outcomes across races — we [should bring] cases that improve access, improve quality of care and reduce costs, particularly when the populations being served are communities of color. That's a big thing that we can do, and we already do, to help make our markets more anti-racist. </p><p>I would rather that we be honest and transparent about the effect our actions have and think about those decisions seriously, because we don't have the resources or the capacity to enforce all the violations of the law in all the markets. When we set priorities, for me, the priority has to include helping historically disadvantaged and marginalized communities where we need to equalize our society more effectively.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="6">
</div>
</div></p><p><strong>Where do you see the role of the FTC when it comes to mitigating algorithmic bias?</strong></p><p><strong></strong>I think we do need a multi-stakeholder process. I think the FTC is one of the interested stakeholders that should be involved. I also think we need to be critically examining the toolbox we have and thinking creatively about how we can use all the tools in it to address this issue. This is something I spoke about and wrote about a year ago. For me, algorithmic bias is an economic justice issue. We see disparate outcomes coming out of algorithmic decision-making that disproportionately affect and harm Black and brown communities and affect their ability to participate equally in society. That's something we need to address, and we need to think about whether it fits under our unfairness framework, whether we might have rule-making authority that could apply to it or whether we use statutes like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act. But I think it's one of those things where really good, creative thinking needs to be applied. </p><p>The issue is new, and it is hard. But one thing I remind myself all the time: My older daughter, who is in Zoom school downstairs in my house right now and hates it, she was in kindergarten last year, and her teacher would say to her all the time, "Kindergarteners can do hard things." And I say to myself: "OK, well if kindergarteners can do hard things, the FTC can do hard things. Government can do hard things, and we have to start trying to tackle the big problems."</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="7">
</div>
</div></p>
Keep Reading
Show less
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Meet the new tech bureaucracy
As Joe Biden takes the oath of office, here are the nominees who will loom large in the lives of tech companies and the people who work for them
Here are the nominees who are most likely to wield power over the tech industry.
Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
January 20, 2021
Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
January 20, 2021
Tech billionaires and the people who work for them overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden's election in November. Now, as he takes the oath of office and becomes the 46th president of the United States, the real work begins.
For the tech industry, that means working with or battling a new administration over everything from antitrust to workforce labor issues. While Biden will undoubtedly set the agenda, the work itself will be carried out by the new heads of federal agencies and the rank-and-file bureaucrats working underneath them.
<p>Over the last several months, Biden has announced an ever-growing list of nominations to powerful positions within his administration. Here are the ones who are most likely to wield that power over the tech industry.</p><h3>Merrick Garland </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Attorney General</strong></p><p>Garland was an antitrust law professor in the 1980s and has written <a href="https://www.antitrustalert.com/2016/03/judge-merrick-garlands-antitrust-past-a-brief-summary/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">extensively on the topic</a>. As attorney general, he'll now oversee the Department of Justice's case against Google's alleged search monopoly. Though Attorney General Bill Barr played an unusually hands-on role in the Google case, it's unclear whether Garland will take the same kind of interest or how he might approach the legal questions around Big Tech. He's already facing progressive pressure to broaden the DOJ's complaint against Google, which is relatively narrow, and to see the case through rather than settling early. The DOJ is still pursuing separate investigations into the other major tech platforms, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/24/justice-department-anti-trust-apple-337120" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">including Apple</a>, which could lead to more tech monopoly cases over the next few years.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><h3>Vanita Gupta </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Associate Attorney General</strong></p><p>Gupta led the DOJ's civil rights division under President Obama, but more recently, as head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, she took a key role in pushing tech companies, including Facebook, to take action on issues like voter suppression and other election threats. Gupta is expected to apply those experiences in her role at the Justice Department, ensuring that tech platforms and their algorithms don't fall afoul of longstanding civil rights laws. As Laura Murphy, the ACLU's former legislative director who worked with Gupta, recently <a href="https://www.protocol.com/vanita-gupta-justice-tech" target="_self">told</a> Protocol, "She's going to bring her tech fluency to the leadership of the Justice Department."</p><h3>Gina Raimondo </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Commerce Secretary</strong></p><p>Raimondo is a former venture capitalist who will help shape the contours of Biden's trade policy — specifically his administration's approach to tariffs, one of Trump's favored tools for punishing other countries during disputes. Tariffs have disrupted supply chains and created expensive headaches for the tech industry over the past four years, and Raimondo will help decide how they're used moving forward. Raimondo, the governor of Rhode Island, has a close relationship with House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee chairman David Cicilline and has <a href="https://twitter.com/GovRaimondo/status/1288878771156787202?s=20" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">pledged support</a> for his ongoing efforts to "ensure big tech companies are held accountable." </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><h3>Antony Blinken </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Secretary of State </strong></p><p>Blinken, who <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2021/01/19/958289975/secretary-of-state-nominee-antony-blinken-promises-humility-and-confidence" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">began his confirmation process</a> on Tuesday, will lead the Biden administration's efforts to rebuild U.S. relationships with key allies, including the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03shrFLEJYri65Izhs-OQuMOFb_ew%3A1611090430732&ei=_kkHYMSXLKOq5NoP1u6rmAU&q=europe+us+tech+relations&oq=europe+us+tech+relations&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIICCEQFhAdEB46BAgAEEc6CggjELACEMkDECc6BAguEA06BAgAEA06BwghEAoQoAE6BAghEAo6BAgjECc6CgguELEDEMkDEEM6BwgAELEDEEM6BAgAEEM6CgguEMcBEKMCEEM6BQgAEJECOg0ILhCxAxDJAxBDEJMCOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoICAAQsQMQgwE6BAguEEM6CwgAELEDEIMBEJECOgUILhCxAzoTCC4QxwEQowIQQxCLAxCoAxCnAzoFCAAQsQM6CggAELEDEMkDEEM6CggAELEDEBQQhwI6AggAOgUIABDJAzoHCAAQFBCHAjoJCAAQyQMQFhAeOggIABAWEAoQHjoGCAAQFhAeUNMMWMsgYJ4haANwBHgFgAG_AogB_iKSAQg3LjEwLjcuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQi4AQLAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjEjszG86juAhUjFVkFHVb3ClMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">European Union</a>, and formulate the Biden administration's stance towards China. Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, launched the Clean Network Program to crack down on Chinese technology on U.S. soil. While Blinken likely wouldn't take up that program specifically, he could engage in a similar effort to formulate rules of the road for Chinese tech companies.</p><h3>Marty Walsh </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Secretary of Labor</strong></p><p>Marty Walsh is known as a "union guy" through and through, and he's expected to come down heavily on the side of labor in the ongoing battle over whether gig workers should be reclassified as employees. Walsh's Department of Labor is widely expected to pursue <a href="https://www.protocol.com/uber-lyft-gig-economy-biden-labor" target="_self">aggressive executive actions</a> to create more rights for gig workers, and it could even go so far as to sue one of the gig companies, such as Uber or Lyft, to force them to classify their workers differently.</p><h3>Isabel Guzman </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Small Business Administrator</strong></p><p>While the SBA administrator may have little influence on tech industry giants, Guzman, who most recently served as head of California's Office of the Small Business Advocate, will certainly be of interest to tech startups. That's particularly true for tech startups still feeling the pinch from COVID-19, given that the SBA is responsible for overseeing the Paycheck Protection Program. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><h3>Avril Haines</h3><p><strong>Nomination: Director of National Intelligence</strong></p><p>Haines, who is currently going through confirmation hearings, worked her way up through the CIA, becoming deputy national security advisor under President Obama. Her most direct tie to the tech industry has been through <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/06/26/biden-adviser-avril-haines-palantir/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">consulting work for Palantir</a>. But as DNI, Haines's work will undoubtedly brush up against other tech giants, including Facebook and Google, who now regularly consult with the intelligence community regarding emerging threats, including foreign influence campaigns. </p><h3>Eric Lander</h3><p><strong>Nomination: Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy </strong></p><p>Lander, a top geneticist, previously co-chaired the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under President Obama and has <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1417697/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">served</a> on the Defense Innovation Board alongside top tech executives Eric Schmidt and Reid Hoffman. Now, he'll be charged with overseeing the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which, for the last four years, has focused on emerging tech, including 5G deployment, the AI race with China and quantum computing.</p><h3>Narda Jones </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Legislative Affairs Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy</strong></p><p>Jones was most recently a top tech policy staffer to Sen. Maria Cantwell on the Senate Commerce Committee, and she'll bring that legislative expertise to her role at the OSTP, where she'll work with Congress on issues including the future of AI, 5G, advanced manufacturing, quantum computing and more. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="4">
</div>
</div></p><h3>Alondra Nelson</h3><p><strong>Nomination: Deputy Director for Science and Society, Office of Science and Technology Policy </strong></p><p>Nelson will bring her deep background in the social sciences to OSTP's work as deputy director for science and society, a newly created position. Nelson, president of the Social Science Research Council, has spent years researching the intersection of <a href="http://www.alondranelson.com/books/technicolor-race-technology-and-everyday-life" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">race and technology</a> and worked <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=social+science+one+alondra+nelson+facebook&oq=social+science+one+alondra+nelson+facebook&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i22i29i30.3810j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">side by side</a> with Facebook to launch Social Science One, a <a href="https://www.protocol.com/facebook-data-sharing-researchers" target="_self">sprawling</a> social science dataset. Nelson will likely work closely with the chief technology officer, who has not yet been announced. </p><h3>Tarun Chhabra </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Senior Director for Technology and National Security, National Security Council</strong></p><p>Tarun Chhabra, a former National Security Council and Department of Defense official under Obama, will help facilitate relationships between the tech industry and the national security world from his perch on the National Security Council. He'll work to coordinate an approach to technology issues across multiple federal agencies. </p><h3>Michael Sulmeyer</h3><p><strong>Nomination: Senior Director for Cyber, National Security Council </strong></p><p>Sulmeyer, who has held cyber positions in the Trump and Obama administrations, will pick up the mantle as one of Biden's closest advisers on cyber. He has <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/msulmeyer" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">written at length</a> about issues including election interference and federal cybersecurity. </p><h3>Brian Deese </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Director of the National Economic Council </strong></p><p>Deese recently <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/CES-2021/Biden-to-counter-China-tech-by-urging-investment-in-US-adviser" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">said</a> that the Biden administration hopes to invest domestically in the U.S. tech sector in order to compete head-to-head with China, rather than turning first to tariffs and export bans. "I think it's clear that China is our most serious global competitor," Deese said during CES. "And this competition is going to be one of the central challenges of this century." </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="5">
</div>
</div></p><h3>Bruce Reed </h3><p><strong>Nomination: Deputy Chief of Staff </strong></p><p>Reed was Biden's most important tech policy adviser during the campaign, and he's expected to play a similar role over the next four years, especially when it comes to the issue of Section 230, which Reed says <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=bruce+reed+section+230&oq=bruce+reed+section+230&aqs=chrome..69i57.2456j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">needs to be overhauled</a>. Reed helped craft California's landmark privacy law in his capacity as an adviser to Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that advocates for tougher online regulations to protect children. California's privacy law "would not have happened without Bruce, there's no question," California State Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-tech/top-biden-adviser-seen-as-making-tech-regulation-more-likely-idUSKBN2820DC" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">told Reuters</a>. </p><h3>Still to come:</h3><p>Biden has yet to announce his picks for some of the most pivotal roles for the tech industry, including the chief technology officer, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission and the chair of the Federal Trade Commission. He's likely to name acting chairs for the FCC and FTC this week, at which point his administration will get to work figuring out who to select for the open chair slots at both agencies. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and FTC Commissioner Reecca Slaughter are favored to become chairs of their respective agencies, but no formal announcements have been made.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Keep Reading
Show less
Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.
People
Expensify CEO: ‘Most CEOs are not bad people, they're just cowards’
"Remember that one time when we almost had civil war? What did you do about it?"
Expensify CEO David Barrett has thoughts on what it means for tech CEOs to claim they act apolitically.
Photo: Expensify
January 20, 2021
Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.
January 19, 2021
The Trump presidency ends tomorrow. It's a political change in which Expensify founder and CEO David Barrett played a brief, but explosive role.
Barrett became famous last fall — or infamous, depending on whom you ask — for sending an email to the fintech startup's clients, urging them to reject Trump and support President-elect Joe Biden.
<p>"Anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy," Barrett said in the email.</p><p>It was an unprecedented political maneuver by a CEO-founder in Silicon Valley, and one that drew praise from a preeminent historian of the region.</p><p>"This was a moment that utterly transcended politics as usual, and his statement utterly transcended politics as usual," futurist and historian Paul Saffo told Protocol. "I'm sure investors got a little bit of a case of indigestion over this. It was a bold move and I would say it was made with considerable character."</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p>And it wasn't a one-off: Barrett sent another email to Expensify customers over the weekend, telling its users about its plans to spend $3 million on fighting inequality, while also railing against the "domestic terrorists" who invaded the Capitol earlier this month.</p><p>Barrett talked to Protocol last Friday, before the latest email, about the coming transition, which he reflected on in a celebratory mood even as he looked back on the controversial episode. "We just survived Trump. This is going to be an amazing year," he said. "The economy's coming back. The vaccines are rolling out. Travel is going to restart. We got a new administration that's going to make reasonable decisions. We avoided a civil war. Everything's on the up and up."</p><p><em>The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.</em></p><p><strong>You sent that email taking a position on the election. I've talked to a lot of CEOs in Silicon Valley who'd rather stay in the middle. They're not going to say what they think or even who they voted for because it's safer.</strong></p><p>My opinion is a little bit different. I think this idea of "Oh, we're apolitical," I think that's kind of bullshit. I think there's no such thing in a democracy as being apolitical. Every action you take is your position. I think that a large number of these tech companies, by saying, "Oh, we're apolitical," that's a very convenient way of saying, "No, I'm voting for the status quo. I support the current administration, and I'm not going to take actions to do anything about it because it's actually good for business." I think it's actually pretty cynical.</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p><strong>There's going to be a change, and there will be new issues. It's probably not going to be as intense as Trump, but there will be issues. How do you navigate them? It can be a slippery slope when you start to take positions.</strong></p><p>I think the litmus test is: What is the real-world potential impact of this? I don't anticipate to weigh in on the normal issues. It sounded bombastic back then when I wrote the newsletter: "Hey, I am genuinely concerned that we're going to have a true civil war, and that's going to be really bad for business. My business is great. We're profitable. We're growing. We're surviving the pandemic. So long as we don't descend into civil war, we'll be fine. But Trump is saying he's not going to leave office, and is anyone reading this crazy shit? We should take it seriously." </p><p>This is not normal politics. This is not taxes or health care or whatever. This is like the destruction of our nation up for discussion. The only reason I felt it was important as a CEO to weigh in was that the stakes are too high to be neutral here. </p><p>Even right now. The guy's still not out of office, by the way. The FBI's warning that we're going to have attacks on every state Capitol. Never has that happened in the history of the nation before. This is so wild, what we're talking about. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><p>I feel that we need to keep reminding ourselves just how beyond the pale this is. As business leaders, it's just shameful to just sit out this entire thing. It's like, "Oh, remember that one time when we almost had civil war? What did you do about it? Oh, fucking nothing? Oh, good job."</p><p><strong>What was the reaction to the email like? Did any of it give you pause?</strong></p><p>Expensify is not a product you adopt overnight. You also don't leave it overnight. We just didn't know what the reaction was going to be. We saw this thing just go so much bigger than we expected. We were like, "Oh, fuck. OK. That's exciting."</p><p>Most people ignored it, or agreed with it, or vented about it or whatever. The vast majority of people, they're too busy. And in this Twitter news cycle, sustaining anger for more than like 10 seconds is hard. It's like, "Fuck Trump! Oh, such a cute puppy!" It's so hard to do anything.</p><p><strong>Where does that come from, that belief in taking a position? Can you talk a bit about your background?</strong></p><p>My background has always been in hard engineering. Never been in finance. Never been in politics or any of that stuff. I think what you're getting at [is]: Why are you so outspoken? I'm in a lucky position to do that. I run a very profitable business that has a very distributed customer base. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="4">
</div>
</div></p><p>I think most CEOs, it's not that they're bad people, they're just cowards. They're like, "Yeah, I would like to take a stand, but I can't because of investors, customers and things like this." It basically comes down to, "I care more about hitting the next quarter results than preventing a civil war," which is so fucked up. They're more afraid of their investors than they are of militants. I'm in a lucky position where I don't have to be afraid of my investors. I'm super profitable. I can't get fired. There's no majority on the board that can fire me. So I think that I am in a position [where] I can take these stands much more than others. </p><p>I've heard from a lot of other CEOs [about speaking up, and they say]: "I can't. I wish I could. I feel bad. I feel ashamed. But I kind of can't." I feel I can give an example of, like, "Guys, speak up. The water's fine." Defending democracy is not actually a bold choice because most people agree with it.</p><p>Sure, we got a lot of shit on Twitter, or whatever. Those people weren't our customers anyway. It had no negative impact on revenue. If anything, I think we're gonna look back and this is going to be an incredible brand building event. We didn't expect this to go as viral as it did. It's like, "Shocker! Getting massive coverage for defending democracy is good for business, actually."</p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="5">
</div>
</div></p><p>I think that CEOs need to have the courage to actually step up for things that matter, and be less sort of afraid of the impact on their businesses. Because most customers, especially the people who are actually buying the software, they care about stability, they care about democracy.</p><p><strong>Would you consider politics after your business career?</strong></p><p>No, that sounds like a huge pain in the ass. Plus that assumes that there is an "after my business career." I just made this giant profitable business, and it's fucking awesome. I want to work here forever. My goal is just to stay here forever.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Keep Reading
Show less
Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.
Politics
'Woke tech' and 'the new slave power': Conservatives gather for Vegas summit
An agenda for the event, hosted by the Claremont Institute, listed speakers including U.S. CTO Michael Kratsios and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
The so-called "Digital Statecraft Summit" was organized by the Claremont Institute. The speakers include U.S. CTO Michael Kratsios and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as a who's-who of far-right provocateurs.
Photo: David Vives/Unsplash
January 16, 2021
Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
January 16, 2021
Conservative investors, political operatives, right-wing writers and Trump administration officials are quietly meeting in Las Vegas this weekend to discuss topics including China, "woke tech" and "the new slave power," according to four people who were invited to attend or speak at the event as well as a copy of the agenda obtained by Protocol.
The so-called "Digital Statecraft Summit" was organized by the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that says its mission is to "restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life." A list of speakers for the event includes a combination of past and current government officials as well as a who's who of far-right provocateurs. One speaker, conservative legal scholar John Eastman, rallied the president's supporters at a White House event before the Capitol Hill riot earlier this month. Some others have been associated with racist ideologies.
<p>Government officials listed on the agenda include United States Chief Technology Officer Michael Kratsios and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading a multi-state antitrust lawsuit against Google and is currently <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/texas-ken-paxton-fbi/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">under federal investigation</a>. A source familiar with Kratsios' planned remarks said he intended to speak about artificial intelligence and China. Also on the agenda: Josh Steinman, the White House National Security Council's recently departed senior director for cyber, who now describes himself as the founder of a "stealth startup" on LinkedIn. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="1">
</div>
</div></p><p>Newly confirmed FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington was also listed on the agenda, but he told Protocol he did not end up attending. "Despite initial plans to do so, I did not attend or otherwise participate in the Claremont event this weekend, and I did not prepare or submit remarks," Simington said. </p><p>The event is happening as Las Vegas <a href="https://lasvegassun.com/news/2021/jan/13/las-vegas-hospital-capacity-crisis-covid-19-soar/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">experiences a spike in COVID cases</a>.</p><p>Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams refused to answer Protocol's questions about "the new slave power" panel, what COVID-19 safety protocols are in place during the in-person gathering or the range of speaker backgrounds on the agenda.</p><p>"The Claremont Institute has been a leading voice against political censorship by the Big Tech oligarchs, and we have no interest in commenting on an obvious hatchet job by a publication so clearly beholden to the pieties of Silicon Valley," Williams said in an email to Protocol. "Your questions are riddled with false premises, but we welcome the fire."</p><p>The list of speakers included several people with controversial pedigrees. One speaker, blogger Curtis Yarvin, otherwise known as Mencius Moldbug, has written that there is "no question that biological differences made Africans better slaves than indigenous Americans" because they were less susceptible to tropical diseases. He also once <a href="https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">wrote</a> in a blog post, "although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff." Yarvin was listed to speak on the panel about "the new slave power," along with Michael Anton, former deputy national security adviser under President Trump, who recently wrote an essay in Claremont's The American Mind publication suggesting that Democrats were "openly talking about staging a coup." </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="2">
</div>
</div></p><p>Another speaker on the agenda, Adam Candeub, is the current acting head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Previously, as a lawyer, he <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/trumps-commerce-department-just-hired-a-lawyer-with-ties-to-white-nationalists/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">represented</a> white nationalist Jared Taylor in a lawsuit against Twitter. Eastman recently retired from his position as a law professor at Chapman University amid an <a href="https://www.ocregister.com/2021/01/13/controversial-law-professor-john-eastman-retires-from-chapman-university/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">uproar</a> over a speech he gave alleging election fraud at the pro-Trump rally preceding the Capitol attack on Jan. 6.</p><p>One of the final speakers listed on the agenda, Soylent founder Rob Rhinehart, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/technology/politics-tech-start-ups-culture-war.html?" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">made waves earlier this summer</a> with a 5,300-word blog post about why he <a href="https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">supported hip-hop artist Kanye West</a> for president. "I am so sick of politics. Politics are suddenly everywhere," he wrote, before jumping into a lengthy post about Joe Biden, why the media is "actually evil" and the importance of biofuels. </p><p>One attendee said they had not been given any information on who would be speaking as of midday Friday, hours before the event was set to kick off, and Claremont Institute did not appear to be promoting the event on social media Saturday as the first panels began. "Maybe they're trying to keep it under wraps," the attendee said. </p><p><div class="ad-tag"><div class="ad-place-holder" data-pos="3">
</div>
</div></p><p>The attendee said they understood that the tenor of the weekend would be "very critical of tech, very pro some type of intervention."</p><p>"There's going to be some discrepancy and debate around what intervention looks like," the attendee said.</p><p>The other topics on the agenda include a panel on "restoring law" and a fireside chat titled, "What happened?" The summit takes place 10 days after a violent mob of Trump supporters breached the Capitol Hill complex, resulting in five deaths and forcing a reckoning within the Republican Party over its alignment with Trump and right-wing conspiracy theorists.</p>
Keep Reading
Show less
Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.
Latest Stories
See more
Most Popular
Bulletins
Get Source Code in your inbox
David Pierce's daily analysis of the tech news that matters.