Policy

Ted Cruz loves the antitrust bills. Why aren’t Democrats worried?

“Once you’ve obtained this bipartisan support, you want to be careful about changes you’re making.”

Ted Cruz

The Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act have supporters and detractors on both sides of the aisle.

Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

In the beginning, there were progressives and conservatives. Progressives wanted social media platforms to get rid of all of the bad stuff they could find — hate speech, misinformation, harassment, you name it. And conservatives wanted, well, the opposite.

Then, along came a couple of antitrust bills aimed at preventing Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon and others from using their vast power to thwart or exploit their competitors. That’s where things get complicated.

Progressive groups and most Democrats cheered the two bills, the Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. But then again, so did Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and others on the right, who seemed to like that the same provisions that would prevent tech giants from discriminating against competitors under these bills might also prevent them from punishing companies like Parler when they break platforms’ rules.

So, what did the people who have been quick to condemn platforms for lax content moderation say about all that? Not much.

The usual suspects who want tech to do more to stop harmful content from spreading online have been unusually quiet about the possibility that the antitrust bills now headed to the Senate floor might actually undermine that work. That’s partly to do with a fundamental disagreement about how the bills will be interpreted. But another big part of it — the part mostly being whispered behind closed doors — is that progressives are wary of jeopardizing Democrats’ best shot at sticking it to tech.

Free Press is one of the few progressive groups that has publicly criticized the bills, alongside the pro-industry group TechFreedom and the Center for Democracy and Technology, which receives financial support from tech giants. Matt Wood, Free Press’ general counsel and vice president of Policy, said the group has been talking with other digital rights, civil rights and civil liberties groups about the flaws they see in the bills, and has “good audiences for our concerns here, and lots of acknowledgement of the potential problem.” But, Wood said, Free Press has yet to see those groups speak out publicly about those problems.

One of those groups is Accountable Tech, a frequent critic of the tech industry that has joined other public interest groups including Public Knowledge, Color of Change and the Center for American Progress to champion the bills. “We've been having ongoing conversations about this internally, and with friends like [Free Press], trying to figure out if there's a way to navigate this that can address their legitimate concerns without pushing [Republicans] off the bill,” said Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech.

Those “legitimate concerns” center around what the bills will mean for tech platforms’ ability to moderate content without being accused of anticompetitive behavior. As Protocol has reported, both Free Press and TechFreedom have previously argued that the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which bars platforms from discriminating against “similarly situated businesses,” could make it easier for a company like, say, Infowars to claim it’s being discriminated against when it gets down-ranked or deplatformed.

The argument against a provision in the Open App Markets Act, which aims to check Google and Apple’s power over app developers, is similar. That provision prohibits app stores from providing “unequal treatment of apps” in a way that might harm competition. In a letter to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Free Press and others argued that provision, and the particular way it’s worded, effectively creates a “Parler Bill of Rights.”

In the case of the app bill, Free Press and TechFreedom have advocated for a narrow amendment that clearly specifies what, exactly, constitutes unequal treatment. But the bill passed the Judiciary Committee last week without that language. “There is simply no reason why any Democrat on the committee shouldn’t welcome our concerns and shouldn’t support our amendment,” said Berin Szóka, TechFreedom’s founder. “The only people who have any reason to object to our amendment are Republicans who want to abuse the bill as a weapon against content moderation.”

For the tech industry, it’s a perfect wedge issue. Democrats are the ones who have been pushing platforms to do more to police themselves. Industry groups have asked if a Big Tech breakup is really worth the risk of backsliding on misinformation and hate speech, knowing their audience.

Supporters of the bills aren’t naive to these concerns. The issues came up before, when the antitrust package passed the House and changes were made to address these concerns before it reached the Senate. At this point in the process, “It is tricky to make changes,” said one member of a group that has supported the bills, who asked to speak anonymously in order to discuss private conversations. “Once you’ve obtained this bipartisan support, you want to be careful about changes you’re making.”

At the same time, this person argued that some of the fears voiced by Free Press and the tech industry are overblown. “This is a concern about lawsuits that aren’t going to actually be successful,” they said. A spokesperson for Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who co-sponsored both bills, told Protocol much the same thing last month, noting that companies that violate a platform’s terms of service would be hard-pressed to mount a legitimate claim around competition.

Of course, even the possibility of lawsuits can spook companies into different behavior, which, in this case, could mean less forceful content moderation. But the supporter who spoke to Protocol said that the benefits of the bills outweigh the risks. “We’re weighing this potential risk of the changing calculus and that [companies] might have to pay their lawyers a little more versus an important competitive benefit,” this person said.

They also noted that even if these bills pass, that wouldn’t make Section 230 go away, meaning tech platforms would still have an important legal shield to rely on for content moderation. (Although, as it happens, the Senate is currently considering a controversial bill called the EARN It Act that would chip away at Sec. 230, a change many progressive groups have come out against.)

Cruz did float an amendment to the app bill that would have doubled down on language that prohibits app stores from discriminating on the basis of political belief. But the Judiciary Committee rejected it. “This bill is not about political speech. It's not about discrimination. It's really about protecting consumers,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, one of the bill’s authors, said at the time.

His co-author, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, however, called Cruz’s proposal regarding political censorship a “really good amendment” and said, “These are things we want to continue to work on.”

If the bills’ naysayers are to be believed, that work is already done.

Fintech

Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep Reading Show less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep Reading Show less
FTA
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.
Enterprise

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep Reading Show less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.

Enterprise

Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins