September 29, 2021 • 23 mins
Big Tech wields enormous power in today's global economy, from driving advances in technology to influencing our political and cultural conversations. Should that power be more tightly regulated and if so, how? Cat Zakrzewski, technology policy reporter at The Washington Post, joins us to share her insights.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
From the recount on Marina nine in and you're listening
to the Recount Daily Pod Today's Wednesday, September. There's really
a concern among Democrats that these companies have been far
too hands off and that the effect of that has
been harm on society and democratic institutions. That was Kat Zakreski,
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post. Cat joined us
(00:30):
to talk about the push on Capitol Hill to start
reigning in big tech. We'll dig into that a little
later on, but first your morning headlines. We begin in Washington,
d C. Were Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that
unless they address the debt ceiling, US Treasury will exhaust
its resources by October eighteenth. At that point, we expect
(00:52):
Treasury would be left with very limited resources that would
be depleted quickly. America would default for the first time
in history. This comes after Republicans block bills on Monday
and Tuesday that would have suspended the debt ceiling and
prevented a looming government shutdown. On Tuesday, Republicans said that
they would support a standalone measure to extend government funding,
(01:15):
but they would not raise the borrowing limit. If nothing
gets passed. By Thursday at midnight, the government will partially
shut down. Next to COVID, Fiser announced that they've submitted
vaccine data for children five to eleven to the Food
and Drug Administration. The drug maker went on to say
that their vaccine is safe in children. The FDA said
(01:36):
that it will review the data as soon as possible.
If approved, this will open the door for over twenty
eight million children to get vaccinated. Madernham and Johnson and
Johnson plan to submit their data soon. In New York State,
a vaccine mandate for all healthcare workers that went into
effect on Monday appears to have successfully pressured thousands to
get a shot over the weekend. The vaccine rate for
(01:57):
nursing home workers was just eighty four percent last week
by Monday night. It was In New York City. Just
a week ago, more than eight thousand workers were still
not vaccinated, but by Monday that number was down to
five thousand. Although the unvaccinated won't be allowed to work,
city officials believe that they can manage with the smaller shortage. Finally,
(02:20):
we end on Capitol Hill where General Mark Millie, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin
and General Kenneth Mackenzie, head of US Central Command, testified
in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. There were
three key things to know from that testimony. One, General
Milly acknowledged he spoke with Bob Woodruff for his recent
(02:40):
book Peril. He went on to emphasize that any cause
he made with China after the January six insurrection were
cleared at the highest levels by the Defense Department. Second,
General's Mackenzie and Millie testified they both recommended keeping troops
in Afghanistan. This is in direct contradiction to what President
and Joe Biden told George Stephanopolis on ABC August nineteen.
(03:04):
The White House responded by saying that the military's advice
was split at the time, but the consensus was that
keeping troops in country meant an escalation to the deal
made by the previous administration and the third General Millie,
called former President Trump's Taliban deal a failure, negatively impacting
the morale of the Afghan security forces. Milly added that
(03:25):
the Taliban also failed to live up to its end
of the agreement except for one thing. It did not
attack any U S forces and now to our daily
deep dive. Big tech wields enormous power in today's global economy,
with billions in profit and billions of users. Social media platforms,
as a subset of big tech, also wield significant power
(03:47):
over our political and cultural conversation. Who should I vote for?
Should I get vaccinated? Even shaping things like a teenage
girl's body image. Should that power be more tightly regulated
and if so, how? Cat Zakretsky, technology policy reporter at
The Washington Post, joins us to share her insights. Cat welcome, Hey,
(04:08):
thank you so much for having me on the show.
So Cat Democrats say big tech is anti competitive and
unfair in ways that harm the consumer. They say the
rules governing them need to be updated. But what are
the kinds of policy areas lawmakers are eyeing and what
impact could this have? So because of that focus on
text power and competition, one of the biggest issues in
(04:29):
Washington right now is antitrust policy and whether the existing
antitrust laws can be enforced against these tech companies to
bring them to account. In recent months, we've seen both
the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice bring
historic anti trust lawsuits against Facebook and Google. And recently
(04:51):
Biden has nominated several people, including FTC Chair Lena Kahn,
to lead these agencies who have a really aggressive view
of antitrust enforcement. And so there's a growing tsunami of
pressure in Washington to address this alleged anti competitive behavior
by the tech companies, and um, you know, we're seeing
(05:14):
this kind of move in two tracks. I just mentioned.
There's the lawsuits that are happening at the agencies, and
at the same time, there's a big debate in Congress
about whether, you know, existing antitrust laws are equipped to
dealing with these companies, and there's been a bipartisan push
to pass legislation to better rain these companies. In so,
free speech has long been a thorny issue with regards
(05:37):
to regulating social media. Get Democrats and Republicans, they're standing
on opposite sides of the aisle of this issue. How
do you think their philosophies differ? What can Congress or
the White House due to protect the consumer from misinformation
or disinformation does has become a really heated issue in
the aftermath of the January six insurrection and also during
the pandemic, when we've seen misinformation about the coronavirus and
(06:00):
subsequently the vaccines swirling on these tech platforms. So both
Democrats and Republicans are really upset about the way the
companies have handled this. On the Republican side, you have
accusations that the tech companies have gone too far. Lawmakers
and the Republican Party Republican governors are extremely upset with
how the companies responded after January six making the decision
(06:23):
to indefinitely suspend President Donald Trump's accounts from Facebook, Google, Twitter,
and that has really amplified the tension on the right
and the concerns among Republicans that these companies wield too
much power over speech. On the Democratic side, you have
the concerns that the companies aren't doing enough. Democrats are
(06:45):
looking at, you know, the lagging vaccination numbers in the
United States and the impact that the social media ecosystem
might be having on that, and they're saying that Facebook, Google,
Twitter need to do more to ensure that false information
about the vaccine is not being amplified and preventing efforts
(07:06):
to end the pandemic. There's also major concerns among the
Democrats about just the way that the tech companies handled
the information environment in general. When you look at the
false claims that former President Donald Trump made about the
election results, when you look at just the lead up
to that and the false claims around mail and ballots
(07:27):
and others. There's really a concern among Democrats that these
companies have been far too hands off and that the
effect of that has been harm on society and democratic institutions.
Do you think there should be some sort of federal
governing body with the power and the ability to make
rules and regulations that protect the consumer. So that's a
(07:48):
big area of debate right now in Washington. So right now,
the biggest Silicon Valley watchdog that we have is the
Federal Trade Commission, which is more than one hundred year
old agency that was set up to protect consumers in
a different era. And there's a big debate on Capitol
Hill right now about whether or not that agency has
the budget, the talent, and just the general resources and
(08:12):
authorities that it needs to hold these tech companies to account.
There's a big push among Democrats right now to increase
the funding for that agency by a billion dollars, which
would be a massive surgeon investment. There's also some debate
though whether we need a totally different paradigm in Washington.
Does there need to be a new agency specifically focused
(08:35):
on these tech related issues, a specific tech regulator who
can take on issues that we've talked about related to privacy, competition,
and more. And we've seen that model in other countries,
And amid these concerns that there hasn't been enough enforcement
of existing consumer protections against these tech giants, there's more
(08:55):
and more of a push on Capitol Hill among Democrats
to set something like that up. That being said, a
lot of Republicans resist the idea of growing government regulation,
and so I think that might be a very tough
sell in this polarized Congress. One area where we definitely
might see some bipartisan consensus is there's a bill that
(09:17):
has already passed the Senate and has been introduced in
the House that would change the way that companies pay
for their filing these around mergers and reallocate those resources
to the Department of Justice and the at TC so
that they could better police competition in sectors like tech.
And you know, lawmakers that I've talked to who are
supportive of that legislation really think that could make a
(09:37):
difference because right now, you have these agencies with limited
budgets going up against these companies that have market caps
above a trillion dollars and have deep benches of legal
expertise that they can draw from. And so we're seeing
really asymmetrical dynamic between the resources between the regulators and
the companies themselves. We got to take a quick break,
(10:00):
but we'll be right back with kat Zakreski, technology policy
reporter at the Washington Post on the Recount Daily Pod.
Welcome back to the Recount Daily Pod, a podcast from
the Recount and I Heart Radio. I'm here with kat Zakreski,
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post, and we're talking
about reining in big tech. So you look at some
(10:24):
of the states across the US. Texas governor has put
his hands on the scale to safeguard free speech. What
did Governor Greg Appid his recent law say about, you know,
you can't censor people banning them from social media? Exactly. So,
the Texas governor signed a bill into law that effectively
would ban tech companies from making content moderation decisions, whether
(10:46):
that's blocking or down ranking content from people based on
their political ideology. And this kind of fits into that
theme that we were talking about earlier that Republicans feel
like the tech companies have gone too far in censoring
their political viewpoints, and they've asserted without evidence that this
is based on political ideology. There's a lot of concern
(11:10):
about these tech companies being based in California and how
their executives might be moderating content on that basis, and
so that has really become a central fundraising message from
the Republicans that we've seen in recent months. And we've
now seen in Texas this law. But I think we're
definitely going to see the tech industry bring legal challenges
(11:32):
against this law taking effect. And we saw a similar
dynamic playout in Florida earlier this summer. The Florida governor
um signed into law. It was slightly different, but effectively
would have fined the tech companies for banning politicians. It
was seen as a direct response to the company's banning
Trump and that while we saw struck down by the courts.
(11:54):
The courts ruled that it could not go into effect.
Florida is appealing that decision, but we're likely to see
a very similar battle play out in Texas, and so
I think the big takeaway is, even if these laws
don't fly under the First Amendment and the US Constitution,
we see the Republicans finding ways, even when they're not
empower in Washington, to keep the pressure on the companies
(12:17):
on this issue and really pushed back as they allege
that they're being censored. As you mentioned, misinformation with regards
to hot button political and cultural topics like vaccines has
really been rampant on social media. Facebook recently announced a
new initiative to investigate and even remove networks of accounts
spreading misinformation. But critics are saying, look, this just isn't enough.
(12:40):
What do you say. That's a good point. Yes, we've
certainly seen tensions mounting between Democrats and Facebook for the
company's handling of vaccine misinformation. But I think, you know,
the lawmakers and the Biden administration are in a tricky
spot when it comes to this. They can publicly pressure
Facebook to do more to take down disinformation, and we've
(13:01):
seen them do that. We've seen them hold hearings on
the issue, We've seen letters almost weekly from members of
Congress pressuring the companies on this, and we've seen, you know,
the back and forth between the Biden administration and Facebook
on this issue. We had the President of the United
States come out and say Facebook is killing people, who
later are slightly walked back those comments. But this has
(13:23):
been a very public point of tension between Democrats and
the companies. I think the question is what can they
actually do to regulate this issue because of the First
Amendment in the United States. I think there's a lot
of debates right now about how to do that. One thing,
Democrats are eyeing our changes to Section to thirty, which
is the legal shield which protects tech companies from lawsuits
(13:45):
for content that people share on their platforms. But it's
unclear if there's the political will in a tightly divided
Congress to actually move on that. Yeah, political will, it's important.
I want to talk a little bit about data privacy.
Company needs have been mining your data activity to do
everything from just selling new products and services to even
influencing your vote. This has got to be a big
(14:07):
concern for lawmakers. I know you just mentioned it's it's
hard to get them to move quickly, but they have
shown a spotlight on big tech companies. It's not just
social media. Do you think lawmakers in Washington are going
to act on this issue anytime soon. It's hard to say.
When I started at the Post a few years ago
in eighteen, everyone thought that Washington was about to move
(14:29):
on privacy legislation because California's privacy law was going into
effect and for the first time, the tech companies were
coming to the table. And you know, we're seeing bipartisan
concern among Republicans and Democrats about this very issue, but
there's been major sticking points in those talks. Republicans and
Democrats do not agree on a lot of the details.
Even though they're both concerned about privacy, they have very
(14:51):
different concerns about how we should get there as a country.
And so instead, what we've been seeing is a patchwork
of different state laws emerged regulating digital privacy. I think
it's really important to watch what's happening at the state level.
So they're watching what's going on in California, in Colorado,
in Virginia and other states to see how that could
potentially be emulated at the federal level. I do think,
(15:13):
you know, it's likely. We just had this hearing yesterday
on Capitol Hill that was an antitrust hearing, but looked
at the big data issues and how tech companies entrenched
their power through the collection of big data, and we're
seeing that intersect with the competition debate on the Hill.
And then at the same time, I think it's very
likely we could see more privacy specific hearings in the
(15:35):
coming months. After covering this for three years and seeing
so much talk about changing federal privacy law and then
seeing little action, I'm skeptical that we'll see something in
the next couple of months. We've got a positing a
quick break, and we'll be right back with Cat Zakreski,
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post on the Recount
(15:56):
Dawn we Pod. Welcome back to the Recount Daily Pod,
the podcast from the Recount and I Heart Radio. I'm
joined by katzer Kresky, technology policy reporter at the Washington Post,
and we're talking about reining in big tech. I want
to ask you about China. They've been cracking down on
tech companies recently. Tell us what they're doing and why
(16:18):
they're doing it. We've seen China take a very different
approach to regulating tech than in the United States. It
seems that there's particularly a concern around child's safety online
and there's been a big crackdown on the amount of
time that children can play video games online, So that's
been an interesting development to watch. We've also seen increased
(16:41):
antitrust enforcement there as well, and I think it's obviously
a very different government system in China, where you have
different values around free speech and government control. But it's
very interesting to see this parallel as we're having a
debate about the power of tex influence in the US,
(17:01):
that China is taking a much more aggressive approach in
some ways and cracking down in these companies. It's frustrating
as you look across the pond and you see Europe,
they just seem to be so much more ahead as
far as regulating. Maybe I don't know if you feel
that way, but you know, the European Unions even developed
this voluntary code of Conduct with many of the largest
tech platforms as signatories, which commits these platforms to removing
(17:24):
hate speech to demote disinformation. Is this policy working and
why is the EU so far ahead of the US
on this kind of regulation. I think for a long time,
the tech companies in the United States were largely viewed
as Darling's If you look back to the time of
the Obama administration, these companies were viewed as having a
(17:44):
really cozy relationship with those regulators. Um they were really
praised in American culture and seen as drivers of innovation
and drivers of economic success and this new economy. And
obviously that you and that vision has completely shattered in
the past four years or so. But I think because
(18:07):
for so long they held that role in American society
in a lot of ways, the political will has only
more recently shifted in the US to regulate these companies
and take on some of these issues. So while the
European Union has had laws like GDPR their privacy regulations
on the books for years now, the US is still
(18:27):
behind and debating on where they should go next. When
you look across upon to Europe, yes they have stronger
protections for consumers, but they don't have their own equivalent
of a Facebook, of a Google, et cetera. And I
think there's a real fear among lawmakers of going too
far and you know, preventing new innovative companies from forming
(18:50):
in the US. Senator Amy Klobuchar, along with Senators Richard
Blumenthal Marcia Blackburn, they just a bill last month that
would change how users download and use apps on both
Apple and Google devices. What do you know about this bill?
What are the chances of this actually being signed into law? So,
this bipartisan bill would specifically look to regulate app stores,
(19:11):
and app stores have been in the news a lot lately,
particularly because Epic, the maker of the video game Fortnite,
has brought an anti trust lawsuit against both Apple and
Google challenging their app store practices, and the judge recently
ruled largely in favor of Apple in in that case,
it's likely we'll see appeals. But so this issue of
(19:33):
the tech company's grip on the app store and through
that how they control what apps are on your phone
and what developers are successful, has become really central to
a lot of the debates around anti trust on the Hill.
But even once we get past that, I think a
lot of the momentum will be on broader anti trust reform,
like what we've seen out of the House Judiciary Committee.
(19:55):
Whereas to me, these app store bills seem more like
a messaging bill and adding to the pressure on Apple
and Google to change their ways as that becomes a
topic of greater scrutiny around the world. So as you
stand back Cat, and you've got this incredible bead of
looking at how Capitol Hill and Washington deals with big tech.
What are you watching in the coming year. So the
(20:17):
big things that I'm watching are certainly the debate over
anti trust law. I'm watching what is motivating that and
how the public pressure that we're seeing from Congress, as
we see more hearings, as we see more letters, is
impacting just the practices that we see at each of
these companies. I think Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple are all
(20:40):
in the spotlight right now, and as we continue to
see this barrage of hearings, messaging bills, etcetera, it's really
keeping the public spotlight on them. And so even if
we don't see Congress pass legislation, I do think it
is having an impact on how some of the companies are,
Like you mentioned Facebook changing its policies around misinformation. Cat Zukresky,
(21:02):
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post. Cat enjoyed this conversation.
Thank you for joining us, Thank you for having me,
And now to the look ahead. Here's what else we're
watching today. Court is back in session for Britney Spears.
She continues her bid to ender conservatorship Britney's father, Jamie Spears,
has controlled her personal and business affairs since two thousand eight.
(21:24):
He recently stepped down for that role in August, but
the Los Angeles Court has not yet formally removed him
from the conservatorship. Now, the court must decide if it
should dissolve it altogether, and if not, who to name
as a new conservator. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear
testimony this morning on the Texas abortion ban and the
(21:44):
role of the shadow docket. The term shadow docket refers
to when the Supreme Court settles a case without hearing
oral arguments or issuing a formal opinion. The chair of
the Texas Women's Health Caucus and the president of the
National Women's Law Center are some of the people testifying
for the committee. Members of Congress are taking a swing
for charity today. Democrats and Republicans are going head to
(22:07):
head in the annual Congressional Baseball Game. The raising money
for the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Washington, Washington Nationals,
Dream Foundation, and other organizations. It's actually the first game
since the pandemic started. Have a great day, everyone, We'll
see back tomorrow morning. This is the recount Daily Pod
(22:29):
podcast for the Recount and I Heart Radio Our thanks
to Catskreski, technology policy reporter at the Washington Post for
being on the show. And if you like this episode,
I hope you'll subscribe to The Recount Daily Pod and
to leave us a rating on the Apple podcast app.
I'm your host, Rina Night It
From the recount on Marina nine in and you're listening
to the Recount Daily Pod Today's Wednesday, September. There's really
a concern among Democrats that these companies have been far
too hands off and that the effect of that has
been harm on society and democratic institutions. That was Kat Zakreski,
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post. Cat joined us
(00:30):
to talk about the push on Capitol Hill to start
reigning in big tech. We'll dig into that a little
later on, but first your morning headlines. We begin in Washington,
d C. Were Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that
unless they address the debt ceiling, US Treasury will exhaust
its resources by October eighteenth. At that point, we expect
(00:52):
Treasury would be left with very limited resources that would
be depleted quickly. America would default for the first time
in history. This comes after Republicans block bills on Monday
and Tuesday that would have suspended the debt ceiling and
prevented a looming government shutdown. On Tuesday, Republicans said that
they would support a standalone measure to extend government funding,
(01:15):
but they would not raise the borrowing limit. If nothing
gets passed. By Thursday at midnight, the government will partially
shut down. Next to COVID, Fiser announced that they've submitted
vaccine data for children five to eleven to the Food
and Drug Administration. The drug maker went on to say
that their vaccine is safe in children. The FDA said
(01:36):
that it will review the data as soon as possible.
If approved, this will open the door for over twenty
eight million children to get vaccinated. Madernham and Johnson and
Johnson plan to submit their data soon. In New York State,
a vaccine mandate for all healthcare workers that went into
effect on Monday appears to have successfully pressured thousands to
get a shot over the weekend. The vaccine rate for
(01:57):
nursing home workers was just eighty four percent last week
by Monday night. It was In New York City. Just
a week ago, more than eight thousand workers were still
not vaccinated, but by Monday that number was down to
five thousand. Although the unvaccinated won't be allowed to work,
city officials believe that they can manage with the smaller shortage. Finally,
(02:20):
we end on Capitol Hill where General Mark Millie, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin
and General Kenneth Mackenzie, head of US Central Command, testified
in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. There were
three key things to know from that testimony. One, General
Milly acknowledged he spoke with Bob Woodruff for his recent
(02:40):
book Peril. He went on to emphasize that any cause
he made with China after the January six insurrection were
cleared at the highest levels by the Defense Department. Second,
General's Mackenzie and Millie testified they both recommended keeping troops
in Afghanistan. This is in direct contradiction to what President
and Joe Biden told George Stephanopolis on ABC August nineteen.
(03:04):
The White House responded by saying that the military's advice
was split at the time, but the consensus was that
keeping troops in country meant an escalation to the deal
made by the previous administration and the third General Millie,
called former President Trump's Taliban deal a failure, negatively impacting
the morale of the Afghan security forces. Milly added that
(03:25):
the Taliban also failed to live up to its end
of the agreement except for one thing. It did not
attack any U S forces and now to our daily
deep dive. Big tech wields enormous power in today's global economy,
with billions in profit and billions of users. Social media platforms,
as a subset of big tech, also wield significant power
(03:47):
over our political and cultural conversation. Who should I vote for?
Should I get vaccinated? Even shaping things like a teenage
girl's body image. Should that power be more tightly regulated
and if so, how? Cat Zakretsky, technology policy reporter at
The Washington Post, joins us to share her insights. Cat welcome, Hey,
(04:08):
thank you so much for having me on the show.
So Cat Democrats say big tech is anti competitive and
unfair in ways that harm the consumer. They say the
rules governing them need to be updated. But what are
the kinds of policy areas lawmakers are eyeing and what
impact could this have? So because of that focus on
text power and competition, one of the biggest issues in
(04:29):
Washington right now is antitrust policy and whether the existing
antitrust laws can be enforced against these tech companies to
bring them to account. In recent months, we've seen both
the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice bring
historic anti trust lawsuits against Facebook and Google. And recently
(04:51):
Biden has nominated several people, including FTC Chair Lena Kahn,
to lead these agencies who have a really aggressive view
of antitrust enforcement. And so there's a growing tsunami of
pressure in Washington to address this alleged anti competitive behavior
by the tech companies, and um, you know, we're seeing
(05:14):
this kind of move in two tracks. I just mentioned.
There's the lawsuits that are happening at the agencies, and
at the same time, there's a big debate in Congress
about whether, you know, existing antitrust laws are equipped to
dealing with these companies, and there's been a bipartisan push
to pass legislation to better rain these companies. In so,
free speech has long been a thorny issue with regards
(05:37):
to regulating social media. Get Democrats and Republicans, they're standing
on opposite sides of the aisle of this issue. How
do you think their philosophies differ? What can Congress or
the White House due to protect the consumer from misinformation
or disinformation does has become a really heated issue in
the aftermath of the January six insurrection and also during
the pandemic, when we've seen misinformation about the coronavirus and
(06:00):
subsequently the vaccines swirling on these tech platforms. So both
Democrats and Republicans are really upset about the way the
companies have handled this. On the Republican side, you have
accusations that the tech companies have gone too far. Lawmakers
and the Republican Party Republican governors are extremely upset with
how the companies responded after January six making the decision
(06:23):
to indefinitely suspend President Donald Trump's accounts from Facebook, Google, Twitter,
and that has really amplified the tension on the right
and the concerns among Republicans that these companies wield too
much power over speech. On the Democratic side, you have
the concerns that the companies aren't doing enough. Democrats are
(06:45):
looking at, you know, the lagging vaccination numbers in the
United States and the impact that the social media ecosystem
might be having on that, and they're saying that Facebook, Google,
Twitter need to do more to ensure that false information
about the vaccine is not being amplified and preventing efforts
(07:06):
to end the pandemic. There's also major concerns among the
Democrats about just the way that the tech companies handled
the information environment in general. When you look at the
false claims that former President Donald Trump made about the
election results, when you look at just the lead up
to that and the false claims around mail and ballots
(07:27):
and others. There's really a concern among Democrats that these
companies have been far too hands off and that the
effect of that has been harm on society and democratic institutions.
Do you think there should be some sort of federal
governing body with the power and the ability to make
rules and regulations that protect the consumer. So that's a
(07:48):
big area of debate right now in Washington. So right now,
the biggest Silicon Valley watchdog that we have is the
Federal Trade Commission, which is more than one hundred year
old agency that was set up to protect consumers in
a different era. And there's a big debate on Capitol
Hill right now about whether or not that agency has
the budget, the talent, and just the general resources and
(08:12):
authorities that it needs to hold these tech companies to account.
There's a big push among Democrats right now to increase
the funding for that agency by a billion dollars, which
would be a massive surgeon investment. There's also some debate
though whether we need a totally different paradigm in Washington.
Does there need to be a new agency specifically focused
(08:35):
on these tech related issues, a specific tech regulator who
can take on issues that we've talked about related to privacy, competition,
and more. And we've seen that model in other countries,
And amid these concerns that there hasn't been enough enforcement
of existing consumer protections against these tech giants, there's more
(08:55):
and more of a push on Capitol Hill among Democrats
to set something like that up. That being said, a
lot of Republicans resist the idea of growing government regulation,
and so I think that might be a very tough
sell in this polarized Congress. One area where we definitely
might see some bipartisan consensus is there's a bill that
(09:17):
has already passed the Senate and has been introduced in
the House that would change the way that companies pay
for their filing these around mergers and reallocate those resources
to the Department of Justice and the at TC so
that they could better police competition in sectors like tech.
And you know, lawmakers that I've talked to who are
supportive of that legislation really think that could make a
(09:37):
difference because right now, you have these agencies with limited
budgets going up against these companies that have market caps
above a trillion dollars and have deep benches of legal
expertise that they can draw from. And so we're seeing
really asymmetrical dynamic between the resources between the regulators and
the companies themselves. We got to take a quick break,
(10:00):
but we'll be right back with kat Zakreski, technology policy
reporter at the Washington Post on the Recount Daily Pod.
Welcome back to the Recount Daily Pod, a podcast from
the Recount and I Heart Radio. I'm here with kat Zakreski,
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post, and we're talking
about reining in big tech. So you look at some
(10:24):
of the states across the US. Texas governor has put
his hands on the scale to safeguard free speech. What
did Governor Greg Appid his recent law say about, you know,
you can't censor people banning them from social media? Exactly. So,
the Texas governor signed a bill into law that effectively
would ban tech companies from making content moderation decisions, whether
(10:46):
that's blocking or down ranking content from people based on
their political ideology. And this kind of fits into that
theme that we were talking about earlier that Republicans feel
like the tech companies have gone too far in censoring
their political viewpoints, and they've asserted without evidence that this
is based on political ideology. There's a lot of concern
(11:10):
about these tech companies being based in California and how
their executives might be moderating content on that basis, and
so that has really become a central fundraising message from
the Republicans that we've seen in recent months. And we've
now seen in Texas this law. But I think we're
definitely going to see the tech industry bring legal challenges
(11:32):
against this law taking effect. And we saw a similar
dynamic playout in Florida earlier this summer. The Florida governor
um signed into law. It was slightly different, but effectively
would have fined the tech companies for banning politicians. It
was seen as a direct response to the company's banning
Trump and that while we saw struck down by the courts.
(11:54):
The courts ruled that it could not go into effect.
Florida is appealing that decision, but we're likely to see
a very similar battle play out in Texas, and so
I think the big takeaway is, even if these laws
don't fly under the First Amendment and the US Constitution,
we see the Republicans finding ways, even when they're not
empower in Washington, to keep the pressure on the companies
(12:17):
on this issue and really pushed back as they allege
that they're being censored. As you mentioned, misinformation with regards
to hot button political and cultural topics like vaccines has
really been rampant on social media. Facebook recently announced a
new initiative to investigate and even remove networks of accounts
spreading misinformation. But critics are saying, look, this just isn't enough.
(12:40):
What do you say. That's a good point. Yes, we've
certainly seen tensions mounting between Democrats and Facebook for the
company's handling of vaccine misinformation. But I think, you know,
the lawmakers and the Biden administration are in a tricky
spot when it comes to this. They can publicly pressure
Facebook to do more to take down disinformation, and we've
(13:01):
seen them do that. We've seen them hold hearings on
the issue, We've seen letters almost weekly from members of
Congress pressuring the companies on this, and we've seen, you know,
the back and forth between the Biden administration and Facebook
on this issue. We had the President of the United
States come out and say Facebook is killing people, who
later are slightly walked back those comments. But this has
(13:23):
been a very public point of tension between Democrats and
the companies. I think the question is what can they
actually do to regulate this issue because of the First
Amendment in the United States. I think there's a lot
of debates right now about how to do that. One thing,
Democrats are eyeing our changes to Section to thirty, which
is the legal shield which protects tech companies from lawsuits
(13:45):
for content that people share on their platforms. But it's
unclear if there's the political will in a tightly divided
Congress to actually move on that. Yeah, political will, it's important.
I want to talk a little bit about data privacy.
Company needs have been mining your data activity to do
everything from just selling new products and services to even
influencing your vote. This has got to be a big
(14:07):
concern for lawmakers. I know you just mentioned it's it's
hard to get them to move quickly, but they have
shown a spotlight on big tech companies. It's not just
social media. Do you think lawmakers in Washington are going
to act on this issue anytime soon. It's hard to say.
When I started at the Post a few years ago
in eighteen, everyone thought that Washington was about to move
(14:29):
on privacy legislation because California's privacy law was going into
effect and for the first time, the tech companies were
coming to the table. And you know, we're seeing bipartisan
concern among Republicans and Democrats about this very issue, but
there's been major sticking points in those talks. Republicans and
Democrats do not agree on a lot of the details.
Even though they're both concerned about privacy, they have very
(14:51):
different concerns about how we should get there as a country.
And so instead, what we've been seeing is a patchwork
of different state laws emerged regulating digital privacy. I think
it's really important to watch what's happening at the state level.
So they're watching what's going on in California, in Colorado,
in Virginia and other states to see how that could
potentially be emulated at the federal level. I do think,
(15:13):
you know, it's likely. We just had this hearing yesterday
on Capitol Hill that was an antitrust hearing, but looked
at the big data issues and how tech companies entrenched
their power through the collection of big data, and we're
seeing that intersect with the competition debate on the Hill.
And then at the same time, I think it's very
likely we could see more privacy specific hearings in the
(15:35):
coming months. After covering this for three years and seeing
so much talk about changing federal privacy law and then
seeing little action, I'm skeptical that we'll see something in
the next couple of months. We've got a positing a
quick break, and we'll be right back with Cat Zakreski,
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post on the Recount
(15:56):
Dawn we Pod. Welcome back to the Recount Daily Pod,
the podcast from the Recount and I Heart Radio. I'm
joined by katzer Kresky, technology policy reporter at the Washington Post,
and we're talking about reining in big tech. I want
to ask you about China. They've been cracking down on
tech companies recently. Tell us what they're doing and why
(16:18):
they're doing it. We've seen China take a very different
approach to regulating tech than in the United States. It
seems that there's particularly a concern around child's safety online
and there's been a big crackdown on the amount of
time that children can play video games online, So that's
been an interesting development to watch. We've also seen increased
(16:41):
antitrust enforcement there as well, and I think it's obviously
a very different government system in China, where you have
different values around free speech and government control. But it's
very interesting to see this parallel as we're having a
debate about the power of tex influence in the US,
(17:01):
that China is taking a much more aggressive approach in
some ways and cracking down in these companies. It's frustrating
as you look across the pond and you see Europe,
they just seem to be so much more ahead as
far as regulating. Maybe I don't know if you feel
that way, but you know, the European Unions even developed
this voluntary code of Conduct with many of the largest
tech platforms as signatories, which commits these platforms to removing
(17:24):
hate speech to demote disinformation. Is this policy working and
why is the EU so far ahead of the US
on this kind of regulation. I think for a long time,
the tech companies in the United States were largely viewed
as Darling's If you look back to the time of
the Obama administration, these companies were viewed as having a
(17:44):
really cozy relationship with those regulators. Um they were really
praised in American culture and seen as drivers of innovation
and drivers of economic success and this new economy. And
obviously that you and that vision has completely shattered in
the past four years or so. But I think because
(18:07):
for so long they held that role in American society
in a lot of ways, the political will has only
more recently shifted in the US to regulate these companies
and take on some of these issues. So while the
European Union has had laws like GDPR their privacy regulations
on the books for years now, the US is still
(18:27):
behind and debating on where they should go next. When
you look across upon to Europe, yes they have stronger
protections for consumers, but they don't have their own equivalent
of a Facebook, of a Google, et cetera. And I
think there's a real fear among lawmakers of going too
far and you know, preventing new innovative companies from forming
(18:50):
in the US. Senator Amy Klobuchar, along with Senators Richard
Blumenthal Marcia Blackburn, they just a bill last month that
would change how users download and use apps on both
Apple and Google devices. What do you know about this bill?
What are the chances of this actually being signed into law? So,
this bipartisan bill would specifically look to regulate app stores,
(19:11):
and app stores have been in the news a lot lately,
particularly because Epic, the maker of the video game Fortnite,
has brought an anti trust lawsuit against both Apple and
Google challenging their app store practices, and the judge recently
ruled largely in favor of Apple in in that case,
it's likely we'll see appeals. But so this issue of
(19:33):
the tech company's grip on the app store and through
that how they control what apps are on your phone
and what developers are successful, has become really central to
a lot of the debates around anti trust on the Hill.
But even once we get past that, I think a
lot of the momentum will be on broader anti trust reform,
like what we've seen out of the House Judiciary Committee.
(19:55):
Whereas to me, these app store bills seem more like
a messaging bill and adding to the pressure on Apple
and Google to change their ways as that becomes a
topic of greater scrutiny around the world. So as you
stand back Cat, and you've got this incredible bead of
looking at how Capitol Hill and Washington deals with big tech.
What are you watching in the coming year. So the
(20:17):
big things that I'm watching are certainly the debate over
anti trust law. I'm watching what is motivating that and
how the public pressure that we're seeing from Congress, as
we see more hearings, as we see more letters, is
impacting just the practices that we see at each of
these companies. I think Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple are all
(20:40):
in the spotlight right now, and as we continue to
see this barrage of hearings, messaging bills, etcetera, it's really
keeping the public spotlight on them. And so even if
we don't see Congress pass legislation, I do think it
is having an impact on how some of the companies are,
Like you mentioned Facebook changing its policies around misinformation. Cat Zukresky,
(21:02):
technology policy reporter at the Washington Post. Cat enjoyed this conversation.
Thank you for joining us, Thank you for having me,
And now to the look ahead. Here's what else we're
watching today. Court is back in session for Britney Spears.
She continues her bid to ender conservatorship Britney's father, Jamie Spears,
has controlled her personal and business affairs since two thousand eight.
(21:24):
He recently stepped down for that role in August, but
the Los Angeles Court has not yet formally removed him
from the conservatorship. Now, the court must decide if it
should dissolve it altogether, and if not, who to name
as a new conservator. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear
testimony this morning on the Texas abortion ban and the
(21:44):
role of the shadow docket. The term shadow docket refers
to when the Supreme Court settles a case without hearing
oral arguments or issuing a formal opinion. The chair of
the Texas Women's Health Caucus and the president of the
National Women's Law Center are some of the people testifying
for the committee. Members of Congress are taking a swing
for charity today. Democrats and Republicans are going head to
(22:07):
head in the annual Congressional Baseball Game. The raising money
for the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Washington, Washington Nationals,
Dream Foundation, and other organizations. It's actually the first game
since the pandemic started. Have a great day, everyone, We'll
see back tomorrow morning. This is the recount Daily Pod
(22:29):
podcast for the Recount and I Heart Radio Our thanks
to Catskreski, technology policy reporter at the Washington Post for
being on the show. And if you like this episode,
I hope you'll subscribe to The Recount Daily Pod and
to leave us a rating on the Apple podcast app.
I'm your host, Rina Night It
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!