“Big Tech'' has been the focus of unprecedented amounts of conservative scorn in recent weeks. After several technology companies placed restrictions on conservative users, including President Trump, and companies following the Capitol riots on January 6, some Republicans on Capitol Hill have called for retaliatory action, such as breaking up Big Tech or repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Some conservative companies are taking action on their own. Parler, which gained popularity on the right as a free speech alternative to Twitter, filed a lawsuit against Amazon Web Services (AWS), claiming the decision by AWS to remove Parler from its web-hosting service was motivated by “political animus.” However, Amazon claims removing Parler from their web-hosting service was motivated by safety concerns following the riot on Capitol Hill on January 6. Such actions are permissible under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Action, which provides protections for internet service providers to remove content that is considered objectionable.
As some attempt to chip away at Section 230, it is important to note that without it, companies like AWS would likely have to be more aggressive in policing questionable content and enforcing terms of service. Increased civil liability for technology companies over what is displayed on their sites could also create more barriers for new technology companies. Lawsuits and fees associated with a costly legal team would place a much larger burden on small and emerging companies than on the large tech companies that currently lead the industry.
While Parler may feel that Amazon’s actions are equivalent to “pulling the plug of a hospital patient on life support,” their lawsuit should not encourage Congress to reform antitrust laws in a manner that abandons the consumer welfare standard. Doing so could put politics at the center of antitrust litigation. Parler’s attempt to add gas to the “break up Big Tech” fire is shortsighted, and could ultimately bring about more content moderation, not less.
The call to use antitrust to “break up Big Tech” might be a catchy rallying cry for populist leaders, but conservatives and free market advocates should be concerned about the real threat to liberty: using government or courts to police speech or force companies to act in a government-approved manner. In the same way a brick-and-mortar establishment can refuse service to an unruly individual, an online company retains the same rights to decide who they do business with.
Additionally, the website-hosting marketplace has ample competition, and just a week after it was booted by AWS, Parler was back online. While AWS does own more of the cloud marketplace than any other company, as of 2019, that share was less than 50 percent. Additionally, numerous alternatives to so-called Big Techs have seen massive increases in downloads and engagement. Advocates of breaking up “Big Tech” decry the enormity of these companies’ power, while simultaneously demonstrating how free market solutions -- not government intervention -- are the answer to their complaints.
While some Democrats and Republicans are united now in their calls to break up “Big Tech,” both sides should remain cognizant of the long-term implications of replacing the consumer welfare standard with an aggressive politically motivated approach to antitrust -- especially if their party falls out of power and find their side on the receiving end of this precedent. While targeted reforms may be necessary to ensure certain protections for users, taking the sledgehammer of antitrust enforcement to some of America’s most successful companies is the wrong path and will ultimately backfire on the very people who most fervently support it.