GOP Stops Pretending It Ever Actually Cared About ‘Antitrust Reform’
from the dysfunction-junction dept
To be clear: despite a lot of media coverage claiming otherwise, the GOP (and much of the DNC) was never actually serious about antitrust reform. The GOP in particular has a forty year track record of supporting unchecked monopolization and consolidation with no meaningful government oversight across virtually every industry (telecom, banking, energy, and transportation in particular).
Yet somehow, during the debate over Section 230 and whether or not social media should moderate political propaganda and hate speech, the party positioned itself as being “serious about antitrust reform.” This was, of course, a ruse: the GOP was largely just seeking leverage to frighten Silicon Valley away from moderating race-baiting propaganda, a cornerstone of modern GOP power.
Now, the GOP is backing further away from its brief flirtation with pretending to actually care about antitrust reform and market consolidation after Congressional legislative efforts fell flat on their face:
The House Judiciary Committee on Friday announced Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, a rigid libertarian, will serve as the head of the antitrust subcommittee. The appointment was a snub to Colorado Republican Ken Buck, one of the main House GOP critics of big tech companies, who was the panel’s ranking member in the last Congress.
To be clear, despite the press narrative to the contrary, I don’t think either party is particularly serious about antitrust reform. Congress is simply too grotesquely corrupt, and the combined cross-industry lobbying opposition to meaningful reform too great, to currently be overcome without some sort of major policy and cultural trajectory shift and a massive upheaval in Congress.
Some key Democrats, like Katie Porter and Lina Khan, do at least actually care about the issue. Some key Republicans, like Ken Buck, kind of care, but are so mired in bigoted partisan fever dreams (see his threat to use antitrust to punish “woke Apple” or his tendency to shoot his own legislation in the ass) he’s effectively useless as any kind of serious reformer.
Thanks to Congressional corruption, the biggest push we’ve seen for meaningful antitrust reform in years came in the form of a small number of extremely narrow and problematic bills that myopically fixated only on Big Tech, and even then only specifically massive companies with huge market caps. And even that failed to gain passage, seeing uniformly broad opposition from the same GOP that spent the last three years pretending to care so much about antitrust reform.
The GOP’s pretense that it was “serious about antitrust reform now” was parroted repeatedly and often by the press over the last few years, garnering unearned praise from everyone from Glenn Greenwald and Matt Stoller to mainstream political coverage across Axios, Politico, and Semafor.
It was always bullshit. The GOP was simply angry that a handful of California companies had begun belatedly and sloppily moderating right wing propaganda and hate speech on the Internet, cornerstones of modern GOP party power in the face of unfavorably shifting demographics. The antitrust reform push was a hollow gambit to scare them away from such behaviors, and it served its purpose.
The GOP, of course, won’t stop whining ceaselessly about being “censored” (read: not being able to spread bigotry, hate, and propaganda unchecked across the Internet), but the use of “antitrust reform” as flimsy cover is apparently going away, supplanted by more generic whining about how you can’t make fun of minorities any more like you used to be able to on the Internet:
The appointment of Massie, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained inventor who has filed dozens of patents, signals that the Judiciary Committee under Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio will shift its focus away from legislation aimed at curbing the power of the largest tech companies. Jordan has been more focused on free-speech issues, including big tech’s perceived liberal bias.
“We’re all united in wanting to stop the censorship of conservatives and the suppression of free speech,” Jordan said in an interview. “That’s going to be a focus of the full committee work.”
As a reporter who watched the GOP coddle telecom monopolies for the last twenty-three years, pretending that a party specifically dedicated to unchecked corporate power and consolidation was going to “rein in unchecked corporate power” and “protect consumers from Big Tech” was always the pinnacle of willful delusion.
The press, as they often do, portrayed the GOP as being “serious about antitrust reform” because they’re fecklessly terrified of offending sources, advertisers, and event sponsors. They’ll continue to let the GOP pretend it’s being unfairly censored on the Internet (something completely deflated by science and factual data) for the exact same reason.
Filed Under: antitrust reform, big tech, censorship, consolidation, content moderation, corporate power, gop, ken buck, monopoly, propaganda, thomas massie


Comments on “GOP Stops Pretending It Ever Actually Cared About ‘Antitrust Reform’”
And we shall rename the GOP the GLG, “Great Liars Group”.
Re:
Better idea: The PAB. I mean, Trump went out of his way to (try to) have that tweet removed from Twitter, so there must be something accurate about it.
Re: Re:
On top of that I have it on good authority that if you remove a comment that’s evidence that it’s the ‘strongest opinion/idea’ so that’s just more weight to the validity of the idea that they were on to something.
Re: Re:
Pussy ass bitch or piss ass baby?
The latter’s for Greg Abbott, but still…
Reminder that Congress Member Zoe Lofgren, who was a guest on the Techdirt podcast a while back, has a daughter who works at Google and is against antitrust reform. She voted against AICOA in the House.
Chuck Schumer also has two daughters, one working ar Facebook and one also working at Google. He prevented AICOA from getting a vote in the Senate.
Re:
Let’s remember that there were legitimate reasons that AICOA had problems, which Amy Klobuchar refused to fix.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/21/senators-ask-amy-klobuchar-to-fix-the-content-moderation-loophole-in-her-antitrust-bill/
So before we assume that it was nepotism that killed it, let’s look at the actual problems with the bill, which were fixable, that the sponsor chose not to fix.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Oh, you mean the fearmongering over content moderation that Techdirt and Chamber Of Progress engaged in?
The bills not addressing content moderation was something that was fine. Everyone raising a stink about it fell into the trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Re: Re: Re:
No, it’s bad that was the enemy of good. That “not perfect” gambit is a little worn out.
Re: Re: Re:
I mean the legitimate problems that were easily fixable, which Klobuchar refused to put in place. Contrary to what PK said, we know that the content moderation problems were real because GOP officials said that’s why they supported the bill.
It was a simple fix. Why didn’t Klobuchar do it?
Re: Re: Re:2
Because, as The Fine Article from Public Knowledge that I linked to pointed out, Section 3(a)(3) was fine.
The amendment that Senators Wyden et al wanted for the bill could have easily been used by the companies to shield them from any antitrust lawsuit, no matter how good-faith, by saying “Oh this isn’t about antitrust, this is totally about content moderation, isn’t it?”
Both parties use antitrust as a threat they can use to change policies at tech companies for political gain, or to shake them down for donations.
Re:
Perhaps, but it seems pretty clear that most of the people who actually support antitrust reform are on one side of the aisle.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fork the Internet
Internet 2.0 is already a done deal!
Finance and Healthcare showed that institutions cannot pass a baton worth a shit. The Internet did the same shame.
New data networks easily buck the trend of failed baton passes. New protocols and new data infrastructure every decade or so prevents that failure again. The original Internet was not curated and made by a different breed of individuals. It can be done again.
Politics has always been low IQ. With 3 sides to a story, its very humorous at the 0.5% of the story by obsolete parties. Kicking cans is apples and oranges to baton passing.
Re: What?
“Internet 2.0 is already a done deal!”
Yeah? So what is it?
Re: Re:
Flag and move on, it’s just someone who spam output from ChatGPT or the likes.
Re: Re: Re:
How can you tell the difference between ChatGPT and the usual trolls? They’re all equally incoherent and fact free.
Re: Re: Re:2
The ChatGPT trolls blather on about intelligence and third world countries but at least try to sound coherent. The other trolls are more openly pig-ignorant.
Re: Re: Re:2
You can tell the difference because squishy trolls have bad faith arguments, strawmen and a deplorable attitude in general. This particular troll is so lazy it uses some kind of AI trained on very limited material which makes it regurgitate the same key phrases and words every time.
Re: Re:
Internet 2, formerly Abilene, is/was a high speed network for education and research from the 90s created by the Internet 2 community. The network incarnation since the mid-2000s is just known as Internet 2.
So yeap, done deal. lol
The GOP's hatred of the first amendment just never ends
“We’re all united in wanting to stop the censorship of conservatives and the suppression of free speech,” Jordan said in an interview. “That’s going to be a focus of the full committee work.”
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You're a liberal and you hate conservatives
…you also really like censorship.
That’s it. That’s the whole article.
Re:
Having a meltdown, huh? You might need to seek some counseling for that.
Re:
Didn’t read it huh?
Re:
Couldn’t help yourself, huh, you wittle piss baby?
Re:
No, no, and yes, as applied to you personally and specifically.
Re:
Every accusation, a confession. Remind me, Mutt: Who’s running Florida right now?
Re: Re:
A bunch of woke ideologues apparently, though I do wonder if anyone has told them that yet.
Re:
…projected nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Republicans only care about MONEY
Democrats may not be perfect but at least they are not money driven and have not so bright or very brain dead voters like the GOP.
Re:
ahahahahahahahahahaha
…oh wait, you’re serious—let me laugh even harder
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Re: Re:
Careful there, Stephen. You only have “italic” and “underline” left to go, if you want to laugh harder yet.
Silly people...
You hear Republicans say they are in favor of “Anti-Trust reform”.
The problem is, you believed they were saying that they want reform to prevent Trusts.
I’ve taken my time
Debating with myself if it’s even worth a commentary.
It is.
Nobody is going to deny that there are a few republicans from the extreme fringe that got elected.
Rational people also recognise there are some fringe leftists too.
But let’s not pretend that there’s some major racist undertone to the party. The dems do have big names supported by the nation of islam now.
The issue isn’t so much “censorship” as much as it is censoring language for political points. Calling illegal aliens as such isn’t racism, it’s fact.if your. It born here your an alien. And if you didn’t enter officially your illegal. Period.
But the big thing here is what is “misinformation” about C19. Questioning the value of disposable paper masks is not misinformation, it’s rational debate. It’s a proven fact that post vaccination infection rates are higher than any other vaccine. That’s why they keep rolling out modifications to the vaccines.
The problem isn’t so much the localised censoring of discussions. Private company. Private law.
The question is what the government should or should not do about it.
When you look at the mess without partisan glasses you notice there definitely is a large slant. Should the government protect public speaking in private? That’s a dangerous cliff to be fighting on. And I chose to say no. Right of assembly and rights of property outweighs the greater good.
But let no rational thinker hang their hat at monopoly busting.
Time and again I say point out a single breakup that ultimately benefited the greater public.
The few that respond can all be debunked by looking at a longer time line.
Breaking up social media isn’t going to solve free speech concerns. It’s simply going to create more fiefdoms.
The actual fact of the issue? Most Republicans don’t use social media anywhere near the democrat base level.
Sites like truth and parole and gab don’t fail because of content. They fail because there aren’t enough republicans on social media to move to the platforms to ever make a viable platform. What you end up with is the extremes alone.
The reality is there’s not enough social users in the right wing of US politics to build a platform.
And seriously!
A breakup does nothing for the cause. how the hell could you break up the likes of twitter or Facebook in any way useful anyway?!!?
It’s the same stupidity as telling a gas station they can’t have EV chargers. But, no.
It’s more like telling a gas station it can only sell gas.
What is there to take from a social company that in any way disrupts the social company?