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.

Elon Musk's influence over Twitter was clear at its annual meeting

Even though executives tried not to talk about Musk's deal to buy the company, they couldn't help but address his agenda.

Elon Musk loomed over Twitter's annual shareholder meeting.

Photoillustration: Getty Images; Unsplash; Protocol

In his opening remarks at Twitter's annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday, CEO Parag Agrawal said he wouldn't discuss the pending acquisition bid from Elon Musk, which wasn't on the agenda. That didn’t matter much: Musk’s fingerprints were all over the event, even overshadowing the expected if still-emotional news that Jack Dorsey would step away from Twitter’s board at the meeting's conclusion.

Keep Reading Show less
Hirsh Chitkara

Hirsh Chitkara ( @HirshChitkara) is a reporter at Protocol focused on the intersection of politics, technology and society. Before joining Protocol, he helped write a daily newsletter at Insider that covered all things Big Tech. He's based in New York and can be reached at hchitkara@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Why the digital transformation of industries is creating a more sustainable future

Qualcomm’s chief sustainability officer Angela Baker on how companies can view going “digital” as a way not only toward growth, as laid out in a recent report, but also toward establishing and meeting environmental, social and governance goals.

Three letters dominate business practice at present: ESG, or environmental, social and governance goals. The number of mentions of the environment in financial earnings has doubled in the last five years, according to GlobalData: 600,000 companies mentioned the term in their annual or quarterly results last year.

But meeting those ESG goals can be a challenge — one that businesses can’t and shouldn’t take lightly. Ahead of an exclusive fireside chat at Davos, Angela Baker, chief sustainability officer at Qualcomm, sat down with Protocol to speak about how best to achieve those targets and how Qualcomm thinks about its own sustainability strategy, net zero commitment, other ESG targets and more.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.

Workplace

Netflix’s layoffs reveal a larger diversity challenge in tech

Netflix just laid off 150 full-time employees and a number of agency contractors. Many of them were the company’s most marginalized employees.

It quickly became clear that many of the laid-off contractors possessed marginalized identities.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

After Netflix’s first round of layoffs, there was a brief period of relief for the contractors who ran Netflix’s audience-oriented social media channels, like Strong Black Lead, Most and Con Todo. But the calm didn’t last.

Last week, Netflix laid off 150 full-time employees and a number of agency contractors. The customary #opentowork posts flooded LinkedIn, many coming from impacted members of Netflix’s talent and recruiting teams. A number of laid-off social media contractors also took to Twitter to share the news. It quickly became clear that similar to the layoffs at Tudum, Netflix’s entertainment site, many of the affected contractors possessed marginalized identities. The channels they ran focused on Black, LGBTQ+, Latinx and Asian audiences, among others.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Fintech

Crypto doesn’t have to be red or blue

Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand are backing bipartisan legislation that establishes regulatory clarity for cryptocurrencies. This is the right way to approach a foundational technology.

"Crypto doesn’t neatly fall along party lines because, as a foundational technology, it is — or should be — inherently nonpartisan," says Diogo Mónica, co-founder and president of Anchorage Digital.

Photo: Anchorage Digital

Diogo Mónica is president and co-founder of Anchorage Digital.

When I moved from Portugal to the United States to work at Square, it was hard to wrap my head around the two-party system that dominates American politics. As I saw at home, democracies, by their very nature, can be messy. But as an outsider looking in, I can’t help but worry that the ever-widening gap between America’s two major parties looms over crypto’s future.

Keep Reading Show less
Diogo Mónica
Diogo Mónica is the co-founder and president of Anchorage Digital, the premier digital asset platform for institutions. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from the Technical University of Lisbon, and has worked in software security for over 15 years. As an early employee at Square, he helped build security architecture that now moves $100 billion annually. At Docker, he helped secure core infrastructure used in global banks, governments and the three largest cloud providers.
Fintech

What downturn? A16z raises $4.5 billion for latest crypto fund

The new fund is more than double the $2.2 billion fund the VC firm raised just last June.

A16z general partner Arianna Simpson said that despite the precipitous drop in crypto prices in recent months, the firm is looking to stay active in the market and isn’t worried about short-term price changes.

Photo: Andreessen Horowitz

Andreessen Horowitz has raised $4.5 billion for two crypto venture funds. They’re the industry’s largest ever and represent an outsized bet on the future of Web3 startups, even with the industry in the midst of a steep market downturn.

The pool of money is technically two separate funds: a $1.5 billion fund for seed deals and a $3 billion fund for broader venture deals. That’s more than other megafunds recently raised by competitors such as Paradigm and Haun Ventures.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins