At the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Representatives Ken Buck (R-CO) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) fielded questions on “Big Tech” in a segment “Do Not Pass Go: The Meaning of Monopoly in the Modern Era.” From antitrust to Section 230, a plethora of concerning ideas surfaced in this relatively short session. While the speakers focused on punishing large technology companies, their recommendations would result in one major loser: the American consumer. A light-touch approach to antitrust has led to rapid, expansive innovation. Similarly, Section 230 has helped create the internet as we know it, and the proposed gutting of the liability protections would damage the consumer experience and most likely lead to more content moderation.
Rep. Buck asserts that if large technology companies are broken up or if competition is created, the speech moderation concerns will also be fixed. This notion rests on a faulty premise that competition is lacking in the digital space. Used as an example of “anti-competitive” behavior is the fact that Amazon’s private label competes with online sellers on the Amazon store. This argument completely ignores the fact that Target, Costco, and numerous other companies also have private products that compete with sellers. The misguided motivation that is behind calls to break up big tech will inevitably lead to big government choosing winners and losers. It’s especially concerning to see conservatives preaching significant government intervention into the private market to target a select group of companies.
Another concerning theme in this segment was the almost exclusive focus on ways to benefit competitors. The consumer welfare standard that has guided antitrust enforcement for over four decades has ensured an even-handed and light-touch approach. This standard places the basis for antitrust intervention into the market on if the consumer is harmed. The government’s role is not to ensure that there are 10 Googles, all with equitable reach and access. In fact, many sectors of the economy thrive with large and small companies that serve different segments of consumers. If the majority of consumers choose to use a product that is superior to its competitors, heavy-handed antitrust action by the government to boost competitors will harm the consumer. Competition is important in the marketplace, and the government arbitrarily boosting certain entities leads to uncertainty in the market and could actually depress incentives to innovate.
The issues discussed also conflate antitrust policy with concerns over content moderation. Representative Buck claims “over 99 percent of Twitter employees donate to Democrats” as a rationale for breaking this company up. If this same line of thinking was adopted by progressives, oil & gas, trucking, and mining companies could all face increased government scrutiny for the individual actions taken by private citizens. While conservatives feel they are not getting a fair shake from technology companies after President Trump was removed from various platforms, it is not the role of the federal government to take punitive actions that harm consumers. There are numerous other online forums to communicate on, and a private company should not be strong-armed into doing business with another entity. This is not the way the American economy works.
The discussion around Section 230, the liability protections for online companies, was similarly disappointing to hear from conservatives. The idea that Section 230 protects companies so they won’t moderate content is wrong. Notably, Section 230 companies allows online companies to remove content that is objectionable. The goal of making technology companies easier to sue might seem aimed at large technology companies. However, large companies are the ones who can afford to be sued—it would be smaller companies who would be most burdened by the costly weight of legal fees. Increased legal liability for online companies could also lead to more aggressive content moderation. If companies are going to be held liable for the content of their users, more moderation, a longer review process, and decreased access to consumers would be far more likely outcomes to the gutting of Section 230.
The digital economy is growing rapidly, and heavy-handed intervention in the form of antitrust enforcement or radical Section 230 reforms would come at the expense of consumers. Rep. Issa does make the point that at one point Microsoft’s Internet Explorer was seen by some as too dominant in the market. Blockbuster and MySpace similarly were seen as large and powerful until they were usurped by better products. It would be to the benefit of consumers if the conservative lawmakers who are preaching government intervention in the free market to hurt companies that they have political disagreements with take a long hard look at what that same line of thinking would lead to if used by the other side of the aisle.