Many conservatives lately have turned their ire towards big tech companies. Much of that emanates from both real and perceived bias exhibited by some of these companies towards right-leaning organizations and individuals. These are real grievances that ought to be discussed and resolved in the free market. Unfortunately, too many conservative lawmakers have turned their attention towards European-style antitrust legislation as a means of punishing big tech companies and forcing favorable outcomes for conservatives online. This approach will backfire spectacularly.
One such piece of legislation is the American Innovation and Choice Online (AICO) Act. The bill would initiate antitrust proceedings against tech companies that are deemed to have unfairly advantaged their own products over those of their competitors. It would also do so for companies that are believed to employ“discrimination in the application or [sic] enforcement of the covered platform’s terms of service.” It is language like this that makes conservatives falsely believe that this effort will resolve the pain they feel online.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) a longtime conservative lawmaker – and member of the House Freedom Caucus – is one of the lead sponsors of AICO in the House of Representatives. Buck and fellow AICO sponsor Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) recently signed a joint declaration with members of the European Parliament. The declaration affirmed shared interests and principles in approaching“digital transformation” and to create a“fair and dynamic” marketplace online.
It is clear that some form of European model is driving American antitrust pushes for bills like AICO. Europe, for its part, just recently agreed on language for two sweeping bills, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). The latter mandates that big tech companies take a more active role in policing disinformation,“hate speech,” and other types of“harmful online content.” This is exactly the type of vague censorship standards about which conservatives like Buck have been complaining for some time now.
Recommended
Even fellow Coloradan and one of the more hardline right-wing members of Congress, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) recognizes the European approach to speech online will get conservatives nowhere. In a tweet, Boebert said,“We do NOT need to look to Europe when it comes to censorship. We have a First Amendment. They don’t! This is simple.”
This is quite the obvious observation. Most all lawmakers pushing greater regulation of big tech companies – whether in Europe or in the United States – are pursuing a goal of having tech companies more strictly regulate speech online. In fact, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said the quiet part out loud when she introduced legislation to get social media companies to censor more content online to weed out more supposed hate speech and disinformation. This is worth noting as Klobuchar is the primary sponsor of the Senate version of AICO. The people leading this effort are not concerned with open discourse on the web.
One market-based fix to the problems that supposedly plague conservatives online came when billionaire Elon Musk had his bid to buy Twitter approved by the board of the company. Musk is viewed as unorthodox and more willing to hear out a diverse array of viewpoints. Conservatives online and in the media cheered, hailing a potential new era in online speech with Musk’s takeover of the tech giant. This move required no government intervention whatsoever and was clearly a market response to some of the grievances outlined above.
Buck cheered the move, describing Musk as a “benevolent billionaire” and even loosely likened the move to Donald Trump winning the presidency in 2016. However, Buck’s main co-sponsor on AICO, Rep. Cicilline reacted to the move by saying,“Something is deeply wrong with this country.” He followed that up by saying Congress needed to address the underlying issues with the deal.
Another group that did not like that move was the Open Markets Institute. In a statement, the group called for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to block the deal. They actually went as far as to say Musk’s acquisition was a“threat to free communications and debate in the United States.”
This is notable, as the current head of the FTC, Lina Khan, is a former employee of the Open Markets Institute. Buck’s AICO would grant sweeping new antitrust powers to the FTC. For her part, Khan has called for antitrust to be more aggressively weaponized to accomplish social justice goals. She’s routinely been described by conservatives as too progressive to be objective in FTC proceedings.
It is abundantly clear that many conservatives want to feel a better sense of fairness and openness online. However, it is also abundantly clear that their strange bedfellows on this issue have no such concerns. In fact, they’ve made every effort to drag online discourse and government power in the opposite direction. While they may be on the front lines now, conservatives ought to know they are playing with fire by attaching their names to these antitrust pushes. We need only look to Europe to know how that will play out.
Dan Savickas is the Director of Tech Policy at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member