Politics

What the tech hearing proved about Democrats’ case against Big Tech

They came with antitrust receipts.

What the tech hearing proved about Democrats’ case against Big Tech

If the tech CEOs appearing at the hearing hoped to skate around lawmakers too clueless to take them on, well, that's not what's happening.

Screenshot: Shakeel Hashim/Protocol

Congress takes a lot of abuse for being dumb about tech, and some of it's well deserved. Take, for instance, Rep. Greg Steube grilling Sundar Pichai about why — surprise! — different search results appear at different times and why some of his emails go to spam.

But if the tech CEOs appearing at today's hearing hoped to skate around lawmakers too clueless to take them on, well, that's not what's happening. While most high-profile congressional hearings feature a series of random and disconnected partisan speeches disguised as questions (and there have been a few of those today, to be fair), the Democratic members of the House Antitrust Subcommittee seem committed to building a methodical and coordinated case against Big Tech — and they came with receipts.

One by one, the Democrats laid out their case and collected evidence to support it:

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal vs. Jeff Bezos: Jayapal, who represents much of Seattle, asked Bezos to answer a simple "yes or no" question: Does Amazon use data from third-party sellers to improve its own products? The committee accused Amazon General Counsel Nate Sutton of lying under oath about this issue when he appeared before Congress last year.

    In response, Bezos said, "I can't answer that question yes or no. What I can tell you is we have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business." But he conceded, "I can't guarantee you that policy has never been violated."

    Jayapal then quoted an anonymous former Amazon employee who spoke to the committee during its investigation: "There's a rule, but there's nobody enforcing or spot-checking. They just say, 'Don't help yourself to the data.' It's a candy shop. Everybody can have access to anything they want."
  • Rep. David Cicilline vs. Sundar Pichai: The subcommittee chairman grilled Pichai specifically about Google "stealing" content from other companies, like Genius, who fear retaliation from Google if they complain. "So my first question, Mr. Pichai, is why does Google steal content from honest businesses?" Cicilline also asked about an internal Google document complaining that some websites were "getting too much traffic" and asked how Google can claim to deliver the most relevant search results while also favoring "whatever's most profitable for Google."
  • Rep. Jerry Nadler vs. Mark Zuckerberg: The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee pinned Zuckerberg down with specific documents and emails in which Zuckerberg suggested buying Instagram because he feared the upstart would be "disruptive" and Facebook was "vulnerable in mobile." Zuckerberg's defense: There were lots of photo-sharing apps at the time — remember Path? — and there was nothing wrong with Facebook buying one. "In hindsight, it probably looks obvious Instagram would have reached the scale it has today, but it was far from obvious," he said.
  • Rep. Joe Neguse vs. Mark Zuckerberg: Neguse pressed Zuckerberg over a slide created for Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg in 2012, which concluded Facebook is "now 95% of social media in the U.S." He pointed to that internal slide to bolster his argument that Facebook's business amounts to a "monopoly."

    Neguse, the vice chair of the subcommittee, then quoted a 2014 email from Facebook's chief financial officer, who described the company's acquisitions strategy as a "land grab," and pointed out documents showing Facebook acknowledging internally that its user base overlapped significantly with WhatsApp's.

    "You did tell one of Facebook's senior engineers in 2012 that you can 'likely just buy any competitive startup, but it'll be a while before we can buy Google,'" Neguse read. "Do you recall writing that email?"

    "Congressman, I don't specifically," Zuckerberg said. "But it sounds like a joke."
  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal vs. Mark Zuckerberg: Jayapal interrogated Zuckerberg on Facebook's practice of launching copycat features. Bluntly, she asked, "Do you copy your competitors?" Zuckerberg's response: "We have certainly adapted features that others have led in." When pressed for the number of times this might have happened, Zuckerberg didn't have an answer.

    Things became more heated when Jayapal asked, "Has Facebook ever threatened to clone the products of another company while also attempting to acquire that company?" When Zuckerberg said, "Not that I recall," Jayapal replied, "I'd like to just remind you that you are under oath."

    She then brought up examples from when Facebook bought Instagram and attempted to snap up Snapchat. Jayapal said Zuckerberg used Facebook products to threaten competitors into selling, specifically highlighting a conversation between Zuckerberg and Instagram's Kevin Systrom, in which Systrom reportedly felt threatened. Zuckerberg denied the allegation, saying, "I don't view those conversations as a threat in any way."
  • Rep. Jamie Raskin vs. Jeff Bezos: Rep. Jamie Raskin ticked off a series of hyper-specific questions about Amazon's Alexa, cornering Bezos with questions about whether Alexa smart speakers are priced below market — thus making them nearly impossible to compete with. Bezos conceded that Alexa speakers are priced below market when they're on "promotion," which they frequently are. Raskin then interrogated Bezos about why Alexa automatically offers up Prime Music and tells users to buy AmazonBasics batteries. He asked if Alexa is trained to promote Amazon products. "We do promote our own products," Bezos admitted.

Any confessions and nonanswers are certain to be noted by the regulators investigating Big Tech both in the U.S. and around the world.

Loom, Zoom, boom: How Rippling raised $250 million with a demo video and a memo

Video app Loom has become the founder’s tool of choice for pitching venture capitalists.

Rippling CEO Parker Conrad recorded a product demo on Loom and sent it to investors as a fundraising shortcut.

Photo: Rippling

Parker Conrad has come to deeply loathe PowerPoint slides. He’s raised money for three different startups, and sending investors slides of a pitch deck feels like sending them only half a presentation, he said.

“It’s like sending someone a song and some of the tracks of music are missing,” Conrad, the co-founder and CEO of HR startup Rippling, told Protocol. “Any slide that you put together is meant to be accompanied by your voice track. And so if you’re sending slides without that, it’s a terrible way to convey information.”

Keep Reading Show less
Biz Carson

Biz Carson ( @bizcarson) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol, covering Silicon Valley with a focus on startups and venture capital. Previously, she reported for Forbes and was co-editor of Forbes Next Billion-Dollar Startups list. Before that, she worked for Business Insider, Gigaom, and Wired and started her career as a newspaper designer for Gannett.

The fintech developers who made mobile banking as routine as texting or online shopping aren't done. The next frontier for innovation is open banking – fintech builders are enabling consumers to be at the center of where and how their data is used to provide the services they want and need.

Most people don't even realize they're using open banking services today. If they connected their investment and banking accounts in a personal financial management solution or app, they're using open banking. Perhaps they've seen ads about how they can improve their credit score by uploading pay stubs or utility records to that same app – this is also powered by open banking.

Keep Reading Show less
Bob Schukai
Bob Schukai is Executive Vice President of Technology Development, New Digital Infrastructure & Fintech at Mastercard, where he leads the technical design, execution and support of innovative open banking and fintech solutions, as well as next generation technologies to support global payment and data capabilities. Prior to Mastercard, Schukai’s work focused on cognitive computing, financial technology, blockchain, user experience and digital identity. He is also a member of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

The cry-laughing emoji has absolutely earned this

Is it always sincere or even trendy? No. Does it serve its purpose? Absolutely.

The laugh-cry emoji has provided us with a codified process for indicating that we are all having a fun time here.

Photo: atomicstudio via Getty Images

In a stunning victory for the rights of people who find out about TikToks via Instagram Reels and have fond memories of Warped tour, the cry-laughing emoji has once again emerged from the fray as the most-used emoji of the year, according to data from the Unicode Consortium. The tearful grin, whose Christian name is “Face with Tears of Joy,” hasn’t relinquished its stranglehold on the top spot since 2015, when we as a nation were reeling from Zayn Malik’s One Direction exit, marveling at the Sisyphean efforts of pizza rat and becoming slowly numb to Uptown Funk. That was the same year that the teary-eyed grin was named Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year.

This is the second year that the Unicode Consortium, a nonprofit organization tasked with digitizing language, has released data (the first was in 2019). Other emojis in the top 10 include the red heart, sobbing face, face with heart eyes and Old Faithful, the venerable smiley face 😊. The Consortium notes that many of the most-used emojis’ placements have stayed consistent from its 2019 data, although the pleading face emoji (🥺) did make a noticeable leap from 97 to 14.

Keep Reading Show less
Becca Evans
Becca Evans is a copy editor and producer at Protocol. Previously she edited Carrie Ann Conversations, a wellness and lifestyle publication founded by Carrie Ann Inaba. She's also written for STYLECASTER. Becca lives in Los Angeles.
Protocol | Policy

Inside the scramble to fix Biden’s plan for the future of the internet

The White House is planning to unveil its Alliance for the Future of the Internet this week following a month of pushback and a mad dash to reshape the ambitious proposal.

An initial proposal raised alarm bells with civil society groups and other U.S. government agencies alike.

Photo: Joe Daniel Price/Getty Images

The White House is set to announce plans this week for its much-anticipated Alliance for the Future of the Internet, a bid to rally a coalition of democracies around a vision for an open and free web.

But behind the scenes, digital rights advocates, foreign governments and even other U.S. officials have spent the last month scrambling to push the White House to rethink its initial plans, leaving the fine points of the proposal in flux with days to go before the big reveal.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. 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.

Protocol | China

How IP protection drove Chinese fans away from Hollywood

The sentencing of China’s largest volunteer subtitle group is a warning message to fans of pirated material.

Two major Chinese video platforms attended a press conference of the action against copyright violations in Beijing on Nov. 13, 2013.

Photo: WANG ZHAO / Stringer via Getty Images

For 16 years, Liang Yongping led one of the biggest Chinese fan translation groups, one that has brought countless foreign movies to the Chinese internet. His methods were legally questionable, but for a long time, the government didn’t seem to mind. When Liang was interviewed by a state-run magazine in 2011, he was called “the preacher of knowledge in the internet era.

But on Nov. 22, Liang was handed a sentence of 3.5 years in prison and a fine of over $230,000. The reason, to no one’s surprise, was copyright infringement.

Keep Reading Show less
Zeyi Yang
Zeyi Yang is a reporter with Protocol | China. Previously, he worked as a reporting fellow for the digital magazine Rest of World, covering the intersection of technology and culture in China and neighboring countries. He has also contributed to the South China Morning Post, Nikkei Asia, Columbia Journalism Review, among other publications. In his spare time, Zeyi co-founded a Mandarin podcast that tells LGBTQ stories in China. He has been playing Pokemon for 14 years and has a weird favorite pick.
Latest Stories