Will the Government Get Tough on Big Tech?

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Will the Government Get Tough on Big Tech?"

The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Host: David Remnick
Guest: Sue Halpern
Date: June 17, 2019

---

Main Theme

This episode explores increasing bipartisan calls to hold major technology companies—Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook—accountable through regulation and potential antitrust actions. David Remnick and Sue Halpern analyze why these companies have come under scrutiny, the challenges of applying existing antitrust laws, the role of privacy concerns, and the shifting political and regulatory environment surrounding Big Tech.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Unlikely Consensus and Growing Distrust

• Bipartisan Agreement:
  • Remnick highlights an unusual convergence, noting that both Elizabeth Warren and Steve Bannon distrust Big Tech:

    "If you can get Elizabeth Warren and Steve Bannon to agree on something...that you're doing a lousy job and you can't be trusted. That's kind of a feat." (01:37)

• Political Attention:
  • The DOJ, FTC, and Congress are actively investigating the big four tech giants. Warren has made breaking them up a campaign issue.

2. Failures and Controversies in Tech Oversight

• Problematic Behaviors:
  • Halpern references recent "wrong and creepy" actions by tech companies, spotlighting the doctored Nancy Pelosi video on Facebook:

    "The last of which was the Nancy Pelosi fake video that made her look like a drunken fool." (02:46)

  • Facebook’s reaction:

    "Well, we don't have a rule that says everything on our platform has to be true." (03:20)

• Public & Political Frustration:
  • This response has fueled calls for more oversight.

3. Limits of Current Antitrust Laws

• Outdated Legal Frameworks:
  • Halpern explains the disconnect:

    "Antitrust is typically about pricing ... and that's not what's happening here." (03:51)

  • Breaking up companies alone won’t address privacy, surveillance, or propaganda issues.

4. The Turning Point Against Tech Giants

• 2016 Election & Cambridge Analytica:
  • Halpern names two major catalysts:
    • Use of Platforms for Propaganda: "Platforms ... being used to project and inject propaganda into the country." (05:07)
    • Data Harvesting Scandals: Cambridge Analytica's misuse of data spurred public outrage, but similar tactics used by the Obama campaign weren't as scrutinized:

      "They weren't doing it for the dark arts ... they were doing it to try to get people to get out to vote." (06:23)

• Shifting Attitudes:
  • Public concern deepened after the surprise election result, prompting tougher questions.

5. Privacy at the Forefront

• Lack of U.S. Data Laws:
  • Halpern:

    "There are really no laws that protect our data and protect us from the acquisition of our data and the sale of our data..." (07:08)

  • States like California are leading with laws similar to the EU's GDPR.
• Tech Companies Welcome Federal Regulation (But Want to Write It):

  "They want to direct ... how it goes so that ultimately they still win." (09:49)

6. Barriers in Washington

• Lukewarm Political Appetite:
  • Deep-seated resistance to strong regulation, both from Republicans and "starry-eyed" Democrats, compounded by campaign contributions from Silicon Valley:

    "For the longest time, they were getting a lot of money from the tech companies from Silicon Valley." (09:21)

7. The Role of Oversight Agencies

• Regulatory Inaction:
  • The FTC has historically been "toothless":

    "The FTC has been unbelievably toothless in its regulation of tech." (10:31)

  • Past settlements, such as the 2011 Facebook consent decree, lacked enforcement.
• Who Can Make an Impact?:
  • Both the FTC and DOJ have legal standing; presidential candidates drive the conversation but have limited direct power.
  • Halpern:

    "One of the things that happens when they talk, when Elizabeth Warren talks about breaking up big tech, she automatically puts the tech companies on the defensive." (11:49)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On bipartisan agreement:

  "If you can get Elizabeth Warren and Steve Bannon to agree on something... that's kind of a feat. And that's where the big four tech companies are right now."
  — David Remnick (01:37)

• On Facebook’s response to misinformation:

  "We don't have a rule that says everything on our platform has to be true."
  — Facebook spokesperson, as cited by Sue Halpern (03:20)

• On the inadequacy of current laws:

  "Antitrust is typically about pricing ... and that's not what's happening here."
  — Sue Halpern (03:51)

• On data privacy law gaps:

  "There are really no laws that protect our data and protect us from the acquisition of our data and the sale of our data..."
  — Sue Halpern (07:08)

• On the political reality:

  "For the longest time, they were getting a lot of money from the tech companies from Silicon Valley."
  — Sue Halpern (09:21)

• On regulatory agency failures:

  "The FTC has been unbelievably toothless in its regulation of tech."
  — Sue Halpern (10:31)

• On the value of public conversation:

  "The beginning of any of this, is to have this in the public domain, because it's not going to happen if we just say, oh, well, they're too big. They're too big not only to fail, they're too big to succeed."
  — Sue Halpern (11:49)

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:37] Bipartisan distrust of Big Tech
• [02:46] Facebook’s handling of Pelosi video
• [03:51] Problems with applying current antitrust law
• [05:07] 2016 election and Cambridge Analytica as a turning point
• [07:08] Absence of U.S. data/privacy protection laws
• [09:21] Political donations and resistance to regulation
• [10:31] Regulatory failures of the FTC
• [11:49] Who in government can effect real change?

---

Conclusion

Remnick and Halpern’s discussion reveals that while bipartisan skepticism of Big Tech is at an all-time high, and regulatory agencies are stepping up investigations, significant legal and political hurdles remain. Current antitrust frameworks are ill-suited to address the true impacts of these companies, particularly in areas of privacy and the spread of misinformation. Efforts at state and federal levels are underway, but with tech giants lobbying to shape new regulations to their liking, the effectiveness of any forthcoming government crackdown remains uncertain. Public conversation, driven even by campaign rhetoric, is crucial if meaningful action is to follow.

---

Summary compiled for listeners seeking a clear, comprehensive guide to this episode’s content and arguments.

Transcript

[Asma Khalid]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com newyorker that's that's mintmobile.com new yorker upfront payment of $45 required equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Sue Halpern]

I'm Dorothy Wickenden. On today's Politics and More podcast, David Remnick talks with the New Yorker's Sue Halpern about the movement to regulate the tech industry. Halpern says that antitrust regulations may not do much to alleviate users anxieties about big tech.

[David Remnick]

One thing is pretty clear in this world if you can get Elizabeth Warren and Steve Bannon to agree on something, and the something is that you're doing a lousy job and you can't be trusted. That's kind of a feat. And that's where the big four tech companies are right now. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook are among the biggest and most profitable companies in the world. And they've been accustomed to having their way in Washington for a very long time. But maybe not anymore. The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress are all investigating the tech giants, and there's now talk that antitrust laws could be applied to break them up. Elizabeth Warren has actually made that a cornerstone of her campaign.

[Sue Halpern]

They think they can run their business to just roll right over every small business Every entrepreneur, every startup that might threaten their position. It is time to break up America's tech giants.

[David Remnick]

I asked Sue Halpern, who reports for us on technology and politics, whether Washington is finally changing its tune.

[Sue Halpern]

Basically, we've got a situation in which the tech giants have done a number of things that are wrong and creepy. The last of which was the Nancy Pelosi fake video that made her look like a drunken fool.

[David Remnick]

And then he had a press conference in the Rose Garden with all this.

[Sue Halpern]

Short sort of visuals that obviously were.

[David Remnick]

Planned long before I said, most currently, that he was engaged in a cover up.

[Sue Halpern]

And the response in that case of Facebook was, oops, sorry, let's move on. When the Pelosi video was not taken down, one of the things that Facebook said was, well, we don't have a rule that says everything on our platform has to be true. And so there's been a lot of talk among constituents, among politicians that this has got to stop.

[David Remnick]

Sue, what would have to happen for Congress to determine that these big tech companies are in fact huge monopolies or that they're acting anti competitively?

[Sue Halpern]

Well, that's actually, David, that's one of the problems is the antitrust laws that we have on the books are really not set up to deal with these companies, in part because antitrust is typically about pricing. It's typically about is someone controlling the market and making things cost a particular thing. And that's not what's happening here. So that I think one of the things they could possibly do is change the antitrust statutes. Breaking them up doesn't solve the problem of privacy, and it doesn't solve the problem of data surveillance, and it doesn't solve the problem of propaganda. And those are some of the biggest issues. And those are some of the issues that are really driving a lot of people's disapproval of these companies.

[David Remnick]

What was the turning point, do you think? In other words, for years and years it seemed to me that Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple were revered, really revered for their imagination. The facility of these inventions, the way they seemed to make life easier and more seamless and fluid. And then something happened. What was the turning point?

[Sue Halpern]

I think the turning point was pretty recently, and I think it came with two things. One was the 2016 presidential election where we saw platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram being used to project and inject propaganda into the country. That was very divisive. I think people were very disturbed by the fact that there were possibilities of using tools on Facebook to suppress the African American vote. And the second thing to sort of kick it down the road was Cambridge analytica, when suddenly 87 million Facebook user profiles were being harvested. What Cambridge Analytica did was really not that much different than what the Obama campaign was doing in 2012 with data from the friends of users. But suddenly it was looked on as this very dark exercise, which it was.

[David Remnick]

Well, then why did the Obama campaign get away with it, as it were, and not the Trump campaign?

[Sue Halpern]

Because I don't think people. First of all, I don't think anyone really knew about it. Second of all, the scale was much, much different. And third of all, they weren't doing it for the dark arts. They weren't doing it to try to suppress the vote. They were doing it to try to get people to get out to vote. So I think there wasn't this sense that something untoward was going on. The surprising victory of Donald Trump led people to ask the question, what happened? They really mastered the tools that Facebook had put out there. And they weren't put out there exclusively for the Trump campaign. They were put out there for anybody.

[David Remnick]

How do you go about even remotely going against the problem of privacy, the privacy that none of us really have?

[Sue Halpern]

Yeah. So one of the issues here is that there are really no laws that protect our data and protect us from the acquisition of our data and the sale of our data and the use of our data in these advertising platforms, which is what Facebook and Google really are. So we could follow the lead of Europe and start legislating privacy laws that cover these things. And that's happening to an extent in the states, and that's what's been really interesting to watch. So you see, California has a pretty stringent privacy law that's about to go into effect, or might have already gone into effect. That pretty much follows the gdpr.

[David Remnick]

The GDPR being the European law and data privacy.

[Sue Halpern]

Yeah. And one of the things that's been really interesting to watch is the extent to which the big tech companies are now calling for regulation, but they're calling for federal regulation because they're looking at the states, and they're getting worried that the states are going to do things that are much more stringent than anything that they and their lobbyists can. Can get the federal government to do. So it's a very interesting moment where you see these tech giants coming back and saying, oh, no, no, we really want to be regulated, but the fact is, they want to write the regulations.

[David Remnick]

Well, ultimately, in Washington, is there real support for the kind of European laws that they have on privacy?

[Sue Halpern]

There's probably not a lot of support for the more stringent controls that they have.

[David Remnick]

Why? What's the downside?

[Sue Halpern]

Well, the downside is that there's a kind of long standing, deep seated allergy to regulation. I mean, we get that definitely from the right and from the left, or let's say from the Republicans, there's the anti regulatory sensibility. And from the Democrats, they've always looked at tech with that kind of starry eyed, these are our children kind of sensibility.

[David Remnick]

Not just our children, but our big contributors.

[Sue Halpern]

Well, I was going to go there. Yes, absolutely. So for the longest time, they were getting a lot of money from the tech companies from Silicon Valley.

[David Remnick]

How freaked out or not are these tech companies about the hearings in Congress this week? Are they seeing this as an existential threat to their companies, or are they so well defended by lawyers and lobbyists and the rest that they are pretty confident that they'll survive it?

[Sue Halpern]

I think both. I mean, I think that the reason why they're so well defended by their lawyers and they do have lots and lots of antitrust lawyers in their companies, and they're looking at this as a moment in which they're being called to account. They have to do something, but they want to direct the conversation, they want to direct how it goes so that ultimately they still win.

[David Remnick]

Well, there were hearings in the House earlier this week, and lawmakers started examining the power of Amazon and Apple and Alphabet, which is Google's parent, and Facebook. So what's changed politically that made investigations possible? Just one outrage after another?

[Sue Halpern]

Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think it's been very, very clear that the regulatory agencies that are overseeing the tech companies aren't overseeing the tech companies. The FTC has been unbelievably toothless in its regulation of tech. I mean, look at what happened with Facebook in 2011. It had them sign a consent decree that basically Facebook said, yep. Mm. We have been taking data from people who don't know that we're taking it, but we're not going to do it again. And then they did it again. They did it in such a huge, big way. You know, we found out about Cambridge Analytica. And that's just, you know, one thing that they did. And now, you know, what is it? Years later, they're finally getting around to talking about fining Facebook. That is a very, very slow wheel of justice. And so there's a desire on the part of legislators to try to figure out whether or not they can do something legislatively. And that really does remain to be seen.

[David Remnick]

But finally, who are the people in government who can have the biggest impact on Is it the ftc, Is it the Justice Department, a certain House committee, or is it the presidential candidates?

[Sue Halpern]

Good question. I think that, you know, one of the things that we know is that antitrust can come from either the FTC or from the Department of Justice. You know, what can the presidential candidates do? And obviously all they can do is talk. But one of the things that happens when they talk, when Elizabeth Warren talks about breaking up big tech, she automatically puts the tech companies on the defensive. And then they have to come up with a rationale for why they shouldn't be. And then we have a conversation. And I think that's the beginning of any of this, is to have this in the public domain, because it's not going to happen if we just say, oh, well, they're too big. They're too big not only to fail, they're too big to succeed. And then we just move on.

[David Remnick]

Sue Halpern is a frequent contributor to the New Yorker and a scholar in residence at Middlebury College.

[Asma Khalid]

America is changing, and so is the world.

[David Remnick]

But what's happening in America isn't just the cause of global upheaval. It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.

[Asma Khalid]

I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. i'm.

[David Remnick]

Tristan Redman in London, and this is the Global story.

[Asma Khalid]

Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.

[David Remnick]

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Sue Halpern]

From. PRX.