{"id":66144,"date":"2021-03-24T09:23:53","date_gmt":"2021-03-24T15:23:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=66144"},"modified":"2021-03-24T09:51:49","modified_gmt":"2021-03-24T15:51:49","slug":"66144","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=66144","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p>So 3 television networks, a couple of national news magazines, and a handful of newspapers per big city? amirite?<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/taibbi.substack.com\/p\/a-biden-appointees-troubling-views\">A Biden Appointee\u2019s Troubling Views On The First Amendment<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>When Columbia law professor Timothy Wu was appointed by Joe Biden to the National Economic Council a few weeks back, the press hailed it as great news for progressives. The author of\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Curse-Bigness-Antitrust-New-Gilded\/dp\/0999745468\">The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>is known as a staunch advocate of antitrust enforcement, and Biden\u2019s choice of him, along with the appointment of Lina Khan to the Federal Trade Commission, was widely seen as a signal that the new administration was assembling what\u00a0<em>Wired\u00a0<\/em>called an \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wired.com\/story\/lina-khan-ftc-antitrust-biden-administration\/\">antitrust all-star team<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2021\/03\/05\/big-tech-critic-tim-wu-joins-biden-administration-to-work-on-competition-policy.html\">Big Tech critic Tim Wu joins Biden administration to work on competition policy<\/a>,\u201d boomed CNBC, while\u00a0<em>Marketwatch\u00a0<\/em>added, \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.marketwatch.com\/story\/anti-big-tech-crusader-reportedly-poised-to-join-biden-white-house-2021-02-23\">Anti-Big Tech crusader reportedly poised to join Biden White House<\/a>.\u201d Chicago law professor Eric Posner\u2019s piece for\u00a0<em>Project Syndicate\u00a0<\/em>was titled \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.project-syndicate.org\/commentary\/biden-big-tech-and-the-return-of-antitrust-by-eric-posner-2021-03\">Antitrust is Back in America<\/a><em>.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>Posner noted Wu\u2019s appointment comes as Senator Amy Klobuchar has introduced regulatory\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.klobuchar.senate.gov\/public\/index.cfm\/2021\/2\/senator-klobuchar-introduces-sweeping-bill-to-promote-competition-and-improve-antitrust-enforcement\">legislation<\/a>\u00a0that ostensibly targets companies like Facebook and Google, which a House committee last year concluded have\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2020\/10\/06\/house-democrats-say-facebook-amazon-alphabet-apple-enjoy-monopoly-power.html\">accrued \u201cmonopoly power<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Wu\u2019s appointment may presage tougher enforcement of tech firms. However, he has other passions that got less ink. Specifically, Wu \u2014 who introduced the concept of \u201cnet neutrality\u201d and once\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SiUV5jmfYEU\">explained it to Stephen Colbert on a roller coaster<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 is among the intellectual leaders of a growing movement in Democratic circles to scale back the First Amendment. He wrote an influential September, 2017 article called \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/knightcolumbia.org\/content\/tim-wu-first-amendment-obsolete\">Is the First Amendment Obsolete<\/a>?\u201d that argues traditional speech freedoms need to be rethought in the Internet\/Trump era. He outlined the same ideas in a 2018 Aspen Ideas Festival speech:<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"YouTube video player\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/7R8bIo5sPWk\" width=\"600\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><span data-mce-type=\"bookmark\" style=\"display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;\" class=\"mce_SELRES_start\">\ufeff<\/span><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Listening to Wu, who has not responded to requests for an interview, is confusing. He calls himself a \u201cdevotee\u201d of the great Louis Brandeis, speaking with reverence about his ideas and those of other famed judicial speech champions like Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. In the Aspen speech above, he went so far as to say about First Amendment protections that \u201cthese old opinions are so great, it\u2019s like watching\u00a0<em>The Godfather,\u00a0<\/em>you can\u2019t imagine anything could be better.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>If you hear a \u201cbut\u2026\u201d coming in his rhetoric, you guessed right. He does imagine something better. The Cliff\u2019s Notes version of Wu\u2019s thesis:<\/p>\n<p>\u2014 The framers wrote the Bill of Rights in an atmosphere where speech was expensive and rare. The Internet made speech cheap, and human attention<em>\u00a0<\/em>rare. Speech-hostile societies like Russia and China have already shown how to capitalize on this \u201ccheap speech\u201d era, eschewing censorship and bans in favor of \u201cflooding\u201d the Internet with pro-government propaganda.<\/p>\n<p>\u2014 As a result, those who place faith in the First Amendment to solve speech dilemmas should \u201cadmit defeat\u201d and imagine new solutions for repelling foreign propaganda, fake news, and other problems. \u201cIn some cases,\u201d Wu writes, \u201cthis could mean that the First Amendment must broaden its own reach to encompass new techniques of speech control.\u201d What might that look like? He writes, without irony:<strong> \u201cI think the elected branches should be allowed, within reasonable limits, to try returning the country to the kind of media environment that prevailed in the 1950s.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 More ominously, Wu suggests that in modern times, the government may be more of a bystander to a problem in which private platforms play the largest roles. Therefore, a potential solution (emphasis mine) \u201cboils down to asking whether these platforms should adopt (or\u00a0<strong>be forced to adopt<\/strong>) norms and policies traditionally associated with twentieth-century journalism.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>That last line is what should make speech advocates worry.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Wu\u2019s appointment may not matter a lot to those concerned about constitutional freedoms because, as Stanford professor Nate Persily puts it, the current Supreme Court would be very hostile to any attempt to water down the First Amendment. \u201cIf there\u2019s one thing that\u2019s consistent about the Roberts court,\u201d says Persily, \u201cit\u2019s very strong speech protections.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>However, there\u2019s a paradox embedded in this new Democratic mainstream thinking about speech in the Internet era. As one activist put it to me last week, the new breed of Democratic-leaning thinkers like Wu wants to be anti-corporate and authoritarian at the same time. Their problem, however, is that in order to effect change through authoritative action, they need to enlist the aid and cooperation of corporate power.<\/p>\n<p>This paradox casts even the \u201cantitrust all-star team\u201d narrative about people like Wu and Khan in a different light. What may begin as a sincere desire by the Biden administration (or, at least, by figures like Wu, who by all accounts is a real antitrust advocate) to break up tech monopolies, may end in negotiation and partnership.<\/p>\n<p>While the liberal tradition of the party tilts toward antitrust action, the new, more authoritarian form of progressivism currently gaining traction is tempted by the power these companies wield, and instead of breaking these firms up, may be more likely to seek to appropriate their influence.<\/p>\n<p>You can see this mentality in the repeated exchanges between Congress and Silicon Valley executives. An example is the celebrated October 23, 2019 questioning of Mark Zuckerberg by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/event\/116th-congress\/house-event\/110136\">House Financial Services Committee hearing<\/a>. The congresswoman, as staunch a believer in the new approach to speech as there is in modern Democratic Party politics, repeatedly asks Zuckerberg questions like, \u201cSo, you won&#8217;t take down lies or you will take down lies?\u201d and \u201cWhy you label the\u00a0<em>Daily Caller<\/em>, a publication well-documented with ties to white supremacists, as an official fact-checker for Facebook?\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"tweet\" style=\"background: #ffffff; display: block; max-width: 520px; margin: 1em auto; border: 1px solid #e1e8ed; border-radius: 5px; padding: 20px 20px 11.6px; font: 400 16px \/ 1.4 Helvetica, Roboto, 'Segoe UI', Calibri, sans-serif; color: #1a1a1a; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;\" data-attrs=\"{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https:\/\/twitter.com\/cspan\/status\/1187098428737753091?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1187098428737753091%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fnews%2F2019%2F10%2Fmark-zuckerberg-facebook-house-testimony-aoc&quot;,&quot;full_text&quot;:&quot;\\&quot;So, you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that's just a pretty simple yes or no.\\&quot;\\n\\nComplete exchange between &lt;span class=\\&quot;tweet-fake-link\\&quot;&gt;@RepAOC&lt;\/span&gt; &lt;span class=\\&quot;tweet-fake-link\\&quot;&gt;@AOC&lt;\/span&gt; and Mark Zuckerberg at today's House Financial Services Cmte hearing. \\n \\nFull video here: &lt;a class=\\&quot;tweet-url\\&quot; href=\\&quot;https:\/\/cs.pn\/2W2BqB2\\&quot;&gt;cs.pn\/2W2BqB2&lt;\/a&gt; &quot;,&quot;username&quot;:&quot;cspan&quot;,&quot;name&quot;:&quot;CSPAN&quot;,&quot;date&quot;:&quot;Wed Oct 23 20:08:15 +0000 2019&quot;,&quot;photos&quot;:[{&quot;img_url&quot;:&quot;https:\/\/cdn.substack.com\/image\/upload\/w_728,c_limit\/l_twitter_play_button_rvaygk,w_120\/yvfnff5cus3pt0uzrmfj&quot;,&quot;link_url&quot;:&quot;https:\/\/t.co\/0iiWtfU5gQ&quot;,&quot;alt_text&quot;:null}],&quot;quoted_tweet&quot;:{},&quot;retweet_count&quot;:8743,&quot;like_count&quot;:25410,&quot;expanded_url&quot;:{}}\">\n<div class=\"tweet-header\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"tweet-user-avatar\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.substack.com\/image\/twitter_name\/w_36\/cspan.jpg\" alt=\"Twitter avatar for @cspan\" \/><span class=\"tweet-author-name\">CSPAN <\/span><span class=\"tweet-author\">@cspan<\/span><\/div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/cspan\/status\/1187098428737753091?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1187098428737753091%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fnews%2F2019%2F10%2Fmark-zuckerberg-facebook-house-testimony-aoc\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">&#8220;So, you won&#8217;t take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that&#8217;s just a pretty simple yes or no.&#8221; Complete exchange between <span class=\"tweet-fake-link\">@RepAOC<\/span> <span class=\"tweet-fake-link\">@AOC<\/span> and Mark Zuckerberg at today&#8217;s House Financial Services Cmte hearing. Full video here: <\/a><a class=\"tweet-url\" href=\"https:\/\/cs.pn\/2W2BqB2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">cs.pn\/2W2BqB2<\/a><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"tweet-photo\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.substack.com\/image\/upload\/w_728,c_limit\/l_twitter_play_button_rvaygk,w_120\/yvfnff5cus3pt0uzrmfj\" alt=\"Image\" \/><\/p>\n<div class=\"tweet-footer\">\n<p class=\"tweet-date\">October 23rd 2019<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"retweets\"><span class=\"rt-count\">8,743<\/span>\u00a0Retweets<\/span><span class=\"likes\"><span class=\"like-count\">25,410<\/span>\u00a0Likes<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Grasping that everyone who\u2019s ever thought about speech issues throughout our history has been concerned with the publication of falsehoods, incitement to violence, libel, hate speech, and other problems, the issue here isn\u2019t the\u00a0<em>what<\/em>, but the\u00a0<em>who.\u00a0<\/em>The question isn\u2019t whether or not you think the\u00a0<em>Daily Caller\u00a0<\/em>should be fact-checking, but whether you think it\u2019s appropriate to leave Mark Zuckerberg in charge of naming anyone at all a fact-checker. AOC doesn\u2019t seem to be upset that Zuckerberg has so much authority, but rather that he\u2019s not using it to her liking.<\/p>\n<p>A minority of activists within Democratic Party circles believes that the fundamental reason platforms like Facebook end up being what journalist Matt Stoller describes as speech \u201cdumpster fires\u201d has to do with the financial model of these companies.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThese are advertising monopolies who have centralized control over the discourse,\u201d is how Stoller puts it. He\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.economicliberties.us\/press-release\/economic-liberties-explains-why-policymakers-must-ban-targeted-advertising\/\">published a piece<\/a>\u00a0for the American Economic Liberties Project recently that suggests, \u201cA possible reform path would be to remove protections for firms\u00a0that\u00a0use algorithms to monetize data.\u201d His point is that firms like Facebook are incentivized to push users of all political persuasions toward the most angering, conspiratorial, sensational content, while also discouraging exposure to alternative or debunking points of view \u2014 a primary driver of our fact-starved political dilemma.<\/p>\n<p>In another piece the AELP published after January 6th, \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.economicliberties.us\/our-work\/how-to-prevent-the-next-social-media-driven-attack\/\">How To Prevent the Next Social Media-Driven Attack On Democracy\u2014and Avoid a Big Tech Censorship Regime<\/a><strong>,\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>the Project noted that banning Donald Trump from Twitter is ineffective even as a draconian solution, because it doesn\u2019t alter the platforms\u2019 basic incentive structure. Targeting the clickbait ad sales model for regulatory reform isn\u2019t a panacea, either, but from the standpoint of traditional liberalism, breaking up surveillance advertising monopolies has to be better than partnering with said monopolies to switch out one elitist concept of speech control for another.<\/p>\n<p>This is where the paradox comes in. Every time a Democratic Party-aligned politician or activist says he or she wants the tech companies to take action to prevent, say, the dissemination of fake news, one has to realize that it makes little sense for those same actors to then turn around and advocate for breakups of those same firms. Anyone genuinely interested in clamping down on \u201charmful\u201d speech would consciously or unconsciously want the landscape as concentrated as possible, because an information bottleneck makes controlling unwanted speech easier.<\/p>\n<p>This idea of needing a more activist conception of speech control is clear in Wu\u2019s writing. He speaks about the First Amendment operating as a \u201cnegative right against coercive government action,\u201d while in the modern environment, the government not only needs to secure the freedom\u00a0<em>to\u00a0<\/em>speak, but freedom\u00a0<em>from\u00a0<\/em>abuses. He posits a First Amendment that acts as a \u201cright that obliges the government to ensure a pristine speech environment.\u201d Because that would be difficult to accomplish in the First Amendment\u2019s current form, he suggests \u201cexpanding the category of \u2018state action\u2019 itself to encompass the conduct of major speech platforms like Facebook or Twitter.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>This is the subtext of those constant congressional demands that tech platforms fix the \u201cproblems\u201d of unfettered speech. We have another round of such hearings coming this week. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will be having Zuckerberg, Google\u2019s Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in to discuss, \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/energycommerce.house.gov\/newsroom\/press-releases\/ec-announces-additional-details-on-hearing-with-tech-ceos-on-the\">Disinformation Nation: Social Media&#8217;s Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Committee\u2019s ranking members and subcommittee chairs, Frank Pallone, Jr. of New Jersey, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, are adopting the now-familiar line of pushing to hold the tech firms \u201caccountable\u201d for their speech environments,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/energycommerce.house.gov\/newsroom\/press-releases\/ec-committee-announces-hearing-with-tech-ceos-on-the-misinformation-and\">saying<\/a>\u00a0congress \u201cmust begin the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Do these members of congress, or thinkers like Wu, want to break up these monopolies, or harness them? To date, the answer has run decidedly in one direction. Previous congressional hearings involving tech CEOs \u2014 I\u2019m thinking particularly of an\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?436454-1\/facebook-google-twitter-executives-testify-russia-election-ads\">October, 2017 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee<\/a>\u00a0in which Hawaii\u2019s Mazie Hirono demanded that the platforms come up with plans to keep bad actors who \u201csow discord\u201d from manipulating social media \u2014 already resulted in an overt partnership between Washington and Silicon Valley over \u201ccontent moderation\u201d decisions. The only question is, will that partnership become more expansive, as politicians become increasingly tempted by the power of these companies?<\/p>\n<p>As Stoller puts it, the Democrats have turned the tech battle into something like a\u00a0<em>Lord of the Rings\u00a0<\/em>contest, where the fight ends up being over the \u201cone ring\u201d of speech control. Others point out that the situation for new government appointees in the Biden administraiton will be complicated by the input of the intelligence services, whose point of view on this issue is clear and absolute: they love the bottleneck power of the tech monopolies and would oppose any effort to dilute it.<\/p>\n<p>Still others wonder about the wisdom of creating powerful new partnerships with Silicon Valley, given that political realities may change and another set of actors may soon be driving the content moderation machine. \u201cIt\u2019s not like all this ends with the Biden White House,\u201d is how Persily puts it.<\/p>\n<p>Wu\u2019s comment about \u201creturning\u2026 to the kind of media environment that prevailed in the 1950s\u201d is telling. This was a disastrous period in American media that not only resulted in a historically repressive atmosphere of conformity, but saw all sorts of glaring social problems covered up or de-emphasized with relative ease, from Jim Crow laws to fraudulent propaganda about communist infiltration to overthrows and assassinations in foreign countries.<\/p>\n<p>The wink-wink arrangement that big media companies had with the government persisted through the early sixties, and enabled horribly destructive lies about everything from the Bay of Pigs catastrophe to the Missile Gap to go mostly unchallenged, for a simple reason: if you give someone formal or informal power to choke off lies, they<em>\u00a0<\/em>themselves<em>\u00a0<\/em>may now lie with impunity. It\u2019s Whac-a-Mole: in an effort to solve one problem, you create a much bigger one elsewhere, incentivizing official deceptions.<\/p>\n<p>That 1950s period is attractive to modern politicians because it was a top-down system. This was the era in which worship of rule by technocratic experts became common, when the wisdom of the \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Best_and_the_Brightest\">Best and the Brightest<\/a>\u201d was unchallenged. A yearning to return to those times runs through these new theories about speech, and is prevalent throughout today\u2019s Washington, a city that seems to think everything should be run by people with graduate degrees.<\/p>\n<p>Going back to a system of stewardship of the information landscape by such types isn\u2019t a 21st-century idea. It\u2019s a proven 20th-century failure, and signing up Silicon Valley for a journey backward in time won\u2019t make it work any better.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>So 3 television networks, a couple of national news magazines, and a handful of newspapers per big city? amirite? A Biden Appointee\u2019s Troubling Views On The First Amendment. When Columbia law professor Timothy Wu was appointed by Joe Biden to the National Economic Council a few weeks back, the press hailed it as great news &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=66144\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,74],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rights","category-scratch-a-lib-find-a-tyrant"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=66144"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66144\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":66152,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66144\/revisions\/66152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=66144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=66144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=66144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}