A Hammer In Search Of A Nail: Claims Of “Bias” At Tech Companies Are Misguided And The Proposed “Remedies” Are Even Worse
With a few voices inside the beltway talking about “bias” and technology platforms, it’s important to note that not only do the vast majority of Americans not believe it’s an issue, but a growing chorus of conservative voices have pointed out that any government regulation based on political persuasion would be a clear violation of First Amendment rights.
More below.
American consumers don’t believe “bias” at tech companies is an issue
Springboard Initiative, Survey: “Nearly 3 in 4 Americans believe the political views of employees and leadership of tech companies — and of employees at all businesses — do not impact the product or service.” (1200 respondents, SurveyMonkey, Oct. 25-27)
Springboard Initiative, Survey: “The majority of Americans believe tech companies should moderate content, but also recognize content moderation policies will not please everyone.” (1200 respondents, SurveyMonkey, Oct. 25-27)
John Samples, Cato Institute: “The evidence for bias against conservatives is anecdotal and episodic. The tech companies deny any political bias, and their incentives raise doubts about partisan censorship. Why take the chance you might drive away millions of customers and invite the wrath of Congress and the executive branch on your business? Are the leaders of these companies really such political fanatics that they would run such risks?”
Ryan Khurana, Institute for Advancing Prosperity: “There is no evidence of Google engaging in politically motivated decisions in its search and news algorithms, and there are legitimate reasons regulators have left the company alone up to this point.”
Daniel Castro and Michael McLaughlin, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation: “Amid escalating complaints about anti-conservative bias on social media, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is meeting with state attorneys general Tuesday to discuss opening a federal investigation over possible consumer protection or antitrust law violations against Google, Facebook and Twitter. Not only are these complaints without merit, but the meeting appears to be designed entirely for political purposes. Sessions’ actions are grossly inappropriate, undermine the free speech rights of tech platforms, and ultimately do a disservice to consumers.”
Regulating leading tech companies for their political viewpoints would be “big government” at its worst and violate the First Amendment
Wayne Brough, Innovation Defense Foundation: “Tech companies, incumbent industries, and governments at all levels have a stake in the internet’s future. And when political forces are brought to bear on market outcomes, consumer welfare is put at risk by the special interests who are better represented in the political decision-making process. As the number of regulatory mandates increases, pushing and pulling the internet in different directions, its seamless operation is under threat. And as we observe these new rules accumulating, we may be left wondering who broke the internet.”
David Barnes, Americans for Prosperity: “Antitrust laws exist for the good of American consumers, not to further the political interests of public officials. The Justice Department should not wield its authority to subjectively pick winners and losers in the tech industry or to police free speech. Using threats of antitrust or other enforcement as a political weapon should be cause for concern for every American.”
Ryan Khurana, Institute for Advancing Prosperity: “Directly regulating Google’s feed would itself be a major First Amendment violation — it would be compelling a private company’s speech.”
Jim Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute: “It isn’t just the vaporous evidence of a diabolical Google conspiracy that should alarm free-thinking Republicans. In the past, conservatives and libertarians have attacked the notion that government should be regulating speech. They celebrated when the FCC in 2011 conclusively eliminated the Fairness Doctrine requiring licensed broadcasters to air opposing views on key public issues. The rule’s revocation in 1987 is thought by some to have helped launch the conservative talk radio revolution. And when Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to John Kerry flirted with reviving the Fairness Doctrine in 2009, Newt Gingrich called the idea ‘affirmative action for liberals’ and Sean Hannity ‘an assault on the First Amendment.'”
USA Today Editorial Board: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced last week that he would convene a meeting with states to discuss ways that social media companies stifle free expression. This comes after some Republican members of Congress and the president complained that tech companies were stifling conservative voices. We can think of nothing more repulsive to the values of the Constitution, or antithetical to Republican beliefs, than a government inquiry into the role of media in disseminating speech. Do social media companies stifle some legitimate speech? Almost certainly they do. But if people have a beef with that, they should take it up with the various companies, not run to the government.”
John Samples, Cato Institute: “The First Amendment sharply limits government power over speech. It does not limit private governance of speech. The Cato Institute is free to select speakers and topics for our ‘platform.’ The tech companies have that right also even if they are politically biased. Government officials should also support a culture of free speech. Government officials bullying private companies contravenes a culture of free speech. Needless to say, having the Justice Department investigate those companies looks a lot like a threat to the companies’ freedom.”
See similar observations from Michael Beckerman for RealClearPolitics, Jesse Grady in TownHall, Chris Wilson for The Maven, Zach Almond for RedState.