Stop Pretending The Trump GOP Genuinely Cares About Monopoly Power

from the gullible-and-adorable dept

Over the last year or two, a constant drumbeat has permeated tech news coverage. It goes something like this: the GOP is embracing a "populist" agenda by standing up to "big tech." The modern Trump GOP (with heroic consumer champions like Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn in the lead) we're told, have become stalwart opponents of monopolization, especially in tech. They're just super concerned about what this power means for free speech, especially given that conservative voices are routinely "censored" on the internet.

One problem. It's all bullshit. And there's a long line of journalists and experts who still somehow haven't quite figured that out yet. Or have figured it out but are too afraid of upsetting readers or advertisers to be honest about it.

Case in point: the New York Times, which this week explored how the GOP's interest in "reining in big tech" has stalled because "solutions" to modern tech problems could hurt revenues or don't include adequate hand-wringing over "conservative censorship":

"The Republicans’ chief objections to the report are that some of the legislative proposals against the tech giants could hamper other businesses and impede economic growth, said four people with knowledge of the situation. Several Republicans were also frustrated that the report didn’t address claims of anti-conservative bias from the tech platforms. Mr. Buck said in “The Third Way” that some of the recommendations were “a nonstarter for conservatives."

The Times, like most big outlets, proceeds from the assumption that the Trump GOP genuinely cares about reining in "monopoly power" in technology. But that gives the GOP way more credit than it has earned or deserves, and helps prop up bad faith bullshit as legitimate grievance.

For one, the GOP's breathless concerns about "monopolization" aren't apparent anywhere else. As the GOP freaks out over "big tech," for example, "big telecom" has been allowed to effectively guard the chicken house and eat the lion's share of the chickens. The GOP-controlled FCC effectively neutered itself at AT&T's and Comcast's request. Terrible job and competition killing telecom mergers have been repeatedly, rubber stamped by the GOP. Similarly there's zero evidence of any serious attempt to rein in other monopolized sectors from banking and airlines to pharmaceutical and energy.

There's also still no evidence that "conservatives are being censored." As in, none. Oddly, the New York Times can't be bothered to mention this. The lion's share of those being kicked offline are being kicked offline because they're simply...behaving like assholes on the internet. And in fact, there's far more evidence that platforms like Facebook are ignoring their own rules to protect right-wing speech because it's more profitable to let inflammatory bullshit bumble around the information ecosystem (see: Breitbart being a trusted news ally and nobody giving a damn that Ben Shapiro games Facebook systems to inflate traffic).

Here's the thing. This steady flood of shitty Section 230 bills aren't about policing monopoly power. And folks like Marsha Blackburn and Josh Hawley, who've never had a single bad thing to say about telecom monopolies, couldn't give any less of a shit about monopoly power. They do however care about political power. And the over-arching goal right now is to apply enough pressure on Silicon Valley giants that they don't start adequately policing political disinformation. Because if they do, many of the cornerstones of the modern Trump GOP (race baiting, divisive bullshit, inflammatory garbage, rampant disinformation) fall apart.

Yes, Democrats have plenty of bad ideas and frequently can be found doing nothing or making things even worse. Congress needs a reboot and fresh blood on a tragic scale. But that doesn't change the fact that the entire, multi-year GOP quest to tackle "big tech's monopoly power" has never actually been about monopoly power. It's about political power and money. It's about trying to shovel more ad revenue to accountability-immune telecom monopolies or Rupert Murdoch. It's also about preventing anybody from tackling the mountains of hateful internet bullshit that has become the cornerstone of Trumpism.

And despite countless gullible news reports and experts eager to portray GOP "big tech" pearl clutching as a good faith, earnest examination of the very real problems popping up in tech, it's simply not. And those who continue to pretend otherwise are part of the problem.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, gop, josh hawley, marsha blackburn, monopoly, republicans


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 6:09am

    Congress needing "fresh blood"

    Congress needs a reboot and fresh blood on a tragic scale.

    It's not just that; they need reps and Senators who understand the internet as well as Sen. Ron Wyden and former SEC Chairman Chris Cox did. CASE in point (pun partially intended): an overwhelming majority of representatives voted to pass the CASE act in the house, even by those I generally agree with (usually a lot). So it's not just "fresh blood", but people who understand the issues as well. Maybe we should bring back the Office of Technology Assessment so congress could make informed decisions again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 6:52am

      Maybe we should bring back the Office of Technology Assessment so congress could make informed decisions again.

      Ah, but that would undo one of the chief goals of Republicans going back to the days of Newt Gingrich: destroying independent expertise with which Congress could consult. Republicans can’t have their knowledge (and authority) questioned if they keep out of the room “experts” who can tell Congress “this is fucked up and here’s why”. Bringing the OTA back would give Congress access to people who know what the hell they’re talking about — and that scares the shit out of Republicans, especially Tea Party–era Republicans who’ve been taught to distrust science, experts, and anyone who they believe is a “know-it-all” because they know more about a given subject than do Republicans.

      Democrats, for all their faults (coughfailuretofightclimatechangecough), at least pay lip service to the idea of listening to scientists and experts in their fields. Republicans, more often than not, would rather we all get on our knees and pray.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 6:55am

        Re:

        I regret that I have but one insigtful vote to give to that comment…

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 8:51am

        Re:

        You can tell a lot about a person/group by who/what they consider their enemies, and when 'education' and 'knowledge' are on that list that tells you a lot about them, none of it good.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:22am

          Re: Re:

          Considering the GOP Presidents that followed, it was painfully clear that the GOP (at least their base and funders) saw willful ignorance as virtue.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Thad (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:28am

            Re: Re: Re:

            "Never forget, the press is the enemy, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy, the professors are the enemy, the professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times."
            - Richard Nixon

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Annonymouse, 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:27am

      Re: Congress needing "fresh blood"

      The only way to get fresh oil into an engine is to drain and flush out the old crap.
      So to get fresh blood in you are going to have to spill a whole lot of the old blood.
      The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants and we are all out of patriots.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Oct 2020 @ 1:09am

        Re: Re: Congress needing "fresh blood"

        "The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants and we are all out of patriots."

        Well, you can avoid watering that tree...but only if you've paid the price of eternal vigilance. And the problem is that liberals have sat on their asses for too many years trying, desperately, to "talk things out" with the political personification of irrational hatred.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 6:45am

    The GOP does indeed care about monopoly power.

    It's just that their only care is to make certain that they, or their supporters, are the ones to hold that power.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 6:46am

    Ooops

    There's also still no evidence that "conservatives are being censored."

    You can tell that this was written in advance. Trump was just lightly-censored yesterday on twitter. This line didn't age well at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 6:53am

      Pray tell, how did Twitter stop the leader of the free world from speaking his thoughts to everyone in the world?

      Also: Do you believe Twitter should be forced by law to host COVID-19 disinformation regardless of who posts it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:25am

      Re: Ooops

      Lightly censored? Was it just the vowels that were blacked out?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rocky, 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:42am

        Re: Re: Ooops

        Lightly "censored" = Remove some of the stupidity so those with a functioning brain don't get an aneurysm reading it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Koby (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:22am

        Re: Re: Ooops

        Lightly censored is a descriptive term to satisfy the leftist censors. If one were to say "Trump was censored yesterday", then the apologists counter with "no he wasn't totally censored because it's still possible to view the tweet, even if you have to do extra work, and you can't like it or RT it". The reality is that Trump would be totally censored, if big tech felt they could get away with it. And if even the President of the United States can be censored, then the little guys don't stand a chance. That's why a lot of people support the breakup of the tech monopolies and 230 reform.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:31am

          Re: Re: Re: Ooops

          If one were to say "Trump was censored yesterday", then the apologists counter with "no he wasn't totally censored because it's still possible to view the tweet, even if you have to do extra work, and you can't like it or RT it".

          So you're saying that Trump was censored but he wasn't? Is that Schrödinger's Censorship?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:32am

          Re: Re: Re: Ooops

          But what about Parler, Koby?

          Why don't conservatives just freeze peach all day on Parler?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Annonymouse, 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:33am

          Re: Re: Re: Ooops

          Except for one itty bitty teensy weensy detail.
          They are not monopolies.
          AT&T et al are monopolies.
          The federal reserve is a monopoly.
          Google is not
          Facebook isn't even if it tries oh so hard to be.
          Microsoft effectively is until business and government comes to their senses... ha! 🤪

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Ooops

          "even if you have to do extra work"

          Yes, I too am lazy and unwilling to exert any effort what so ever.
          I definitely need the daily dose of propaganda spoon feed to me by our benevolent overlords. Keep up the good work.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 7 Oct 2020 @ 10:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Ooops

          Sheer stupidity and/or gross dishonesty is a descriptive term that accurately describes people who support a repeal of section 230.

          Fascist is a descriptive term for people who want to force others to carry their speech.

          Silent is a descriptive term for those who will be affected by a repeal of section 230.

          Dead is a descriptive term for a democracy that allow forced speech.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 10:16am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooops

            Mike, I think you should allow Rocky to make a post on this blog/website clearly explaining, differentiating, and delineating the three descriptive terms.

            …Or not. It's your blog.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 7 Oct 2020 @ 12:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooops

              • Sheer stupidity: The belief that everything will magically become better with a complex set of rules or no rules at all.
              • Gross dishonesty: Attacking section 230 for political gains or at the behest of entrenched interests.
              • Fascist: Only totalitarian fascist states force media to carry speech, and that media will in the end be co-opted into the state openly or with a thin guise of legitimacy surrounding it.
              • Silent: The people who no longer can use social media because said media can't accommodate them due to liability concerns or because they no longer dare use social media due to the rampant bigotry, hate and personal attacks the media will descend into (dependent on what replaces 230).
              • Dead: If the government forces speech, entrenched political interests can then easier put out a narrative beneficial to them unchallenged. That's how a democracy dies if we look at recent human history,

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:42am

      Re: Ooops

      Some idiot, who has needed hospital treatment, claiming that Covid is less dangerous that the flu need locking up on public safety grounds, so he was lucky that it was only his comment removed from public view.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 8:34am

      Re: Ooops

      Trump was just lightly-censored yesterday on twitter.

      Which of course begs the question as to why he doesn't take his shitposting to Parler.

      Amirite, Koby?

      Remember Parler?

      What happened with all of you sticking it to Twitter by moving to Parler, big mouth?

      Why don't you all just go where the free speech is, instead of just complaining about it? Or is complaining the only thing impotent, do-nothing conservatives know how to do?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 8:48am

      Again, MODERATED because of being an asshole, not conservative

      Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself or playing the victim, or is that just your kink?

      If someone who played a round of russian roulette and didn't blow the back of their head off due to luck and someone who worked for them making sure the next trigger pull wouldn't be one with the bullet tried to argue that 'russian roulette is perfectly safe, look at me, not a scratch', they would absolutely deserve to have that message removed from social media as grossly irresponsible and incredibly dangerous.

      Likewise if someone got COVID and due to luck and extensive medical treatment the likes of which most people could only dream of('funnily' enough treatment paid for by those people, cause it sure as hell wasn't by the patient), and didn't die as a result of said luck and treatment tried to claim that something that has killed over two-hundred and ten thousand people in the US alone tried to claim that like they've been saying for months it's no big deal because they survived they would very much deserve to have that post removed for the exact same reasons as the dangerous idiot in the first example.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Koby (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:42am

        Re:

        You sound upset that an old, overweight guy who subsists on McDonalds beat it over the weekend. Don't let the coronavirus dominate your life. Let go of the fear and the hate.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:50am

          Re: Re:

          Don't let the coronavirus dominate your life. Let go of the fear and the hate.

          Tell that to the over 200,000 people who died of COVID-19 on the old, overweight guy's watch.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:50am

          Re: Re:

          Projection much?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:53am

          Re: Re:

          Skipped over the Parler comments I see.

          How genuine of you to remind us that Trump's continued use of Twitter allows them to continue making money off of his use of the service, or rather his choice to use the service.

          Seems like if he just closed his account and moved to Parler, that would hurt Twitter far more than you useless chimps whining about how life is so unfair.

          Yet he chooses not to.

          Perhaps that McDonalds diet is affecting what's left of his brain.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:53am

          Re: Re:

          [Projects facts not in evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:57am

          Re: Re:

          You say that, despite the mounting death toll, and the survivors, who did not need hospitalization, but are still suffering poor health six months and more latter. Just how bad does it have to get to convince you that Covid needs treating seriously?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 10:19am

            Re: Re: Re:

            If they're anything like other I've read about it will only sink it once they or an immediate family member catches it and ends up hospitalized and potentially dead, at which point suddenly it might sink in that covid isn't just killing people they never met but can impact them too and just might be something worth taking serious.

            For some people, whether due to sociopathy, lack of empathy or 'just' self-centeredness problems only become real when they impact the person directly, until then it's just something that other people have to deal with and therefore not worth paying any attention to.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:58am

          Re: Re:

          Let go of the fear and the hate.

          Says the one who uses fear and hate as their only tactic.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 10:05am

          Re: Re:

          Nice to see you finally show your true colors, redhat.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 10:11am

          'Why do you fear russian roulette, look I'm fine so it's safe'

          And old, overweight guy who got first-rate medical care that probably only a tiny percentage of the US population could even dream of you mean? It's easy for someone to say not to worry about jumping out of a plane when they have a parachute.

          Once more for emphasis, because apparently it needs to really be hammered in for the slow: Two hundred and ten thousand and rising(216,125 according to coronavirus dashboard as of this comment). That is the US death toll alone, out of just over one million deaths worldwide(1,056,523), meaning the US accounts for almost a quarter of the worldwide deaths, in large part thanks to people like you who refuse to take it seriously.

          if you or Trump want to be suicidally stupid and grossly irresponsible respectively by refusing to take something that has killed hundreds of thousands in the US alone serious by all mean earn that Darwin Award, just don't be surprised when social media sites respond in a responsible manner to keep your idiocy from getting other people killed by blocking/removing your posts that show you're either a Darwin Award just waiting to happen and/or too selfish to care if you get other people killed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 7 Oct 2020 @ 11:11am

          Re: Re:

          Uh he's still infected.
          It's about 18 days between contraction and death. Bout the time it took Herman Cain.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 8 Oct 2020 @ 12:50am

          Re: Re:

          "You sound upset that an old, overweight guy who subsists on McDonalds beat it over the weekend."

          A guy who managed to "beat it" (he's not cured yet, genius, he's clearly struggling), who managed to get world class treatment that most people could not dream of, all paid for by taxes he refused to pay, after having infected at least 35 other people, and who is still promising to remove healthcare rights for millions of Americans who now have pre-existing conditions to due his failure before he leaves office?

          Yeah, sane, rational people are upset a little by that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 10:52am

      Re: Ooops

      You can tell that this was written in advance.

      It wasn't. What the fuck are you even talking about?

      Trump was just lightly-censored yesterday on twitter.

      He wasn't. What the fuck are you even talking about?

      This line didn't age well at all.

      It did. What the fuck are you even talking about?

      So, to get more to the point, Twitter pointing out that the President of the United State is spreading blatant misinformation that is likely to get people KILLED is not "censorship." Second, even if it HAD taken down that info (which it did not, even though it probably should have) is not evidence of "conservatives being censored." It would be evidence of Twitter not wanting people to die because we have an idiot as President.

      Koby, you're bad at this. You look like a brainwashed idiot. We've explained this stuff to you countless times and you keep on repeating Fox News talking points like a blabbering fool.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 8 Oct 2020 @ 12:41am

      Re: Ooops

      "Trump was just lightly-censored yesterday on twitter"

      Yes, he was told to remove some doxxing information from a tweet, and still has access to his account despite having done many things that normally get people banned outright.

      This does not mean what you want it to mean.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    rangda (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:01am

    "Stop Pretending The Trump GOP Genuinely Cares About Monopoly Power"

    You are deluded. The GOP cares very much about monopoly power, they care about ensuring that the few that fund their party have it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:10am

    Monopolies of Companies I Like

    It’s very easy to simply dismiss claims of monopoly power when thinking about companies that I like, such as Apple, Google, or Twitter. But I’m open to claims that we may need to open up their platforms (in different ways as they accomplish different things.). But I still need evidence that the market is being harmed by their behavior before I’ll go along with that, and so far I haven’t seen that like I did with Microsoft.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:25am

      Re: Monopolies of Companies I Like

      But I’m open to claims that we may need to open up [Apple's, Google's, and Twitter's] platforms (in different ways as they accomplish different things.).

      I agree with this. Cory Doctorow suggested "adversarial interoperability", and Twitter, for all their faults, is actually doing something suggested by Mike Masnick's "Protocols, not Platforms" paper for the Knight First Amendment Institute.

      So Twitter is at least doing the right thing in one case; Apple and Google, AFAICT, have not opened themselves up to such a degree (at least not Apple).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:49am

        Re: Re: Monopolies of Companies I Like

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Nijmegen, 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:58am

        Re: Re: Monopolies I Like

        'Apple's, Google's, and Twitter's' are not monopolies.

        But Republicans are not against all Monopolies in principle -- they think some monopolies are great idea, especially those that directly benefit Republican government officials and their special interest supporters.

        And Democrats believe exactly the same thing about monopolies (though their preferred monopolies differ somewhat).

        Government enforced economic monopolies are fundamental to the current structure of American government.
        Few Americans (and certainly nobody posting here here, -1) actually oppose the political concept of Monopoly -- they just want to pick & choose which monopolies are permitted.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          crade (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 12:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Monopolies I Like

          There aren't any monopolies to be found in big tech, the giant companies have all branched into multiple areas and are each competing with the other giants for marketspace in all the various areas and with some clearly being ahead right now in a few spaces.

          Depending on what area your battles might be between google and apple, google and facebook, amazon and netflix, apple and microsoft, microsoft and google, twitter and facebook, facebook and Oracle etc etc ad nauseum.

          and there is a bunch of small fry competition constantly coming and going in basically all those battles as well

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 8 Oct 2020 @ 12:51am

      Re: Monopolies of Companies I Like

      "It’s very easy to simply dismiss claims of monopoly power when thinking about companies that I like, such as Apple, Google, or Twitter."

      Yes, it's very easy to dismiss claims of monopoly against companies that are not only clearly not monopolies, but competitors to each other in several markets.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Narcissus (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 7:39am

    Follow the money, always follow the money

    And there's a long line of journalists and experts who still somehow haven't quite figured that out yet.

    All journalist have seen their livelihood threatened because all that sweet advertising money went to big tech. It seems that, regardless of their political leaning, they might not object to seeing facebook et al taken down a notch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 8:16am

      Re: Follow the money, always follow the money

      I'm willing to given them some benefit of the doubt and assume that for a number of them it's the fault of their bosses that they've been turned from journalists into PR fluffers, rather than acting that way for pure spite, though I'm sure that some are doing it intentionally for the reason you noted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 8:26am

    Not exactly helping your case there...

    If you're trying to convince people that there's worth in what you're offering and that that newfangled 'internet' isn't going to provide people the important news so they should come back to you acting as unpaid PR fluffers for whatever rich person/company wanders by is probably not going to do the trick, and if anything is just going to cause people to treat you as unreliable and give you even less attention, getting their news elsewhere.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Thad (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 8:32am

    Congress needs a reboot and fresh blood on a tragic scale.

    The youngest people in the Senate are Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. Be careful what you wish for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:29am

      Re:

      I made a similar point above, that the CASE act was passed in the House overwhelmingly, including by some of the youngest representatives.

      I also made the point to bring back the OTA, which Stephen T. Stone correctly pointed out that the Republicans got rid of it because it challenged their authority.

      So age (and how long one has been in Washington) may not be the most relevant factors here, and we agree on that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 11:00am

    A better headline, "Stop Pretending The DNC And The Left Wing Genuinely Cares About Monopoly Power"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at publiccode.eu
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.