Technology Sector Privacy Protection

Finance, Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth, Promoting Competition, Growth, and Privacy Protection in the Technology Sector, December 7, 2021

The technology sector has certainly been an attractive target for those who seek to create a wealth tax, which is why we believe the subcommittee is addressing this topic. Whether this sector produces long-term wealth for its owners is questionable, however. Founders are often leveraged and cash flow comes, not from revenue, but from continued capitalization. When making comments on wealth and social media, I always ask the following question:

“How often do you buy a product that is advertised on the platform?”

Me neither. When I buy things, I go to Amazon and similar sites and browse. When I buy airline tickets, I go to the carrier’s web page or a page where I can compare prices. On some media sites, I may follow an ad from one influencer to another, but commercial ads are simply an annoyance, not an opportunity to buy something outside of my budget.

The jury on commercial advertising success in this sector is still out. Any regulation of such advertising is, or should be, the job of the Federal Trade Commission. Advertising in such an environment is no different than advertising in other broadcast or  print media. If there are gaps in the law, they can be easily filled by the appropriate committee, which this is not.

Social media is by nature monopolistic. Our generation finds old classmates, paramours and even disconnected relatives in one place, rather than across multiple platforms. Should the inability to stay afloat without capital infusions be realized, many of us will search for different platforms as a group, using old fashioned technologies like the telephone to decide where to land. True social groups are not really a productive market for most advertising. Indeed, in order to remain friends, political debates often run out of steam. 

Of late, it is the political advertisements that are attracting the most attention. There is very real concern about online sedition - although seditionists who use public sites are not the sharpest of tacks in the desk drawer.

If it were not for the lives lost and the potential for real mayhem, the Insurrection would have been comical. It was based on Mr. Eastman’s rather wishful reading of the 12th Amendment. Once alternative slates became an impossibility, the winner had to be the current President. Even with all of the contested state delegations omitted, Biden still had more electoral votes. A clear reading of the Amendment states that the House counts only a majority of valid electors. Invalidating electors reduces the total. 

Even if a Kangaroo Kongress had found a way to kill or detain members to get a majority to their liking, the rule of law is strong enough in this nation and its military for the traitors to have succeeded. The organizers  would have simply been elected immediately rather than after the current FBI and congressional investigations (including the Ethics Committee) finish their work. Our democracy was never in real danger - although members of Congress certainly were.

Most social media politics is not that blatantly stupid or dangerous. The real “muscle” of the militia movement is currently rotting in the District of Columbia jail. Most will realistically face long prison terms, as will certain members of the legislature who were in any way part of the master conspiracy. Existing law will punish the guilty, as will the Ethics Committees.

Having eliminated commerce, capital finance and sedition as concerns in the technology sector, it is time to address what is left and why there is little that can be done by this, or any other committee.

Issues of competition, growth and privacy must be considered around the issues of political speech and advertising. Platforms have, of late, been policing themselves (Twitter) or are shut down (Parler) when extremists become dangerous. Any discussions along these lines are probably best discussed by the Intelligence Committees and their staff. A new minority leader, with new staff, on the minority side of the other chamber can be trusted to get down to business.

The avenues for Congress to regulate political advertising have been foreclosed by the Constitution and the Courts.  The content of political speech on social media cannot be touched. The same applies to issues and independent campaigns. That social media leaves a trail that could prove that some independent campaigns are more linked to the main campaign than is allowable is a positive. 

The FEC needs adequate staffing to follow such leads - and a more robust membership model. The current structure would be comical if it did not endanger our democracy. The FEC must also build stronger relationships to the intelligence community to avoid a repeat of 2016. I suspect more shoes will drop soon.

The questions of the privacy of data in this context consist of voter identification, get out the vote and fundraising data. When funds are raised for a candidate’s political committee, information must be public. For dark money committees, more sunshine is desperately needed.

President Obama’s campaign perfected the tools for using technology in 2008. The Trump campaign merely followed the existing playbook. Any campaign that does not target using the same methods should not bother filing papers to get on the ballot.

Regulations on soliciting contributions and volunteers are problematic. The real gold in electoral politics are good donor and volunteer lists. The kind of donors and activists who are most in demand already know that their information is as valuable to future campaigns as it is for the ones they are currently working on. 

Adding “fine print” to donations - or possibly a video to be watched before making a contribution or volunteering would be worthwhile to let first time donors know what they are truly signing up for.t I wish you luck getting such measures passed. No one wants to be the first to warn potential donors, although in the long run, it may be a selling point for reform minded candidates.

As long as the Supreme Court takes a broad view of what constitutes political speech (and measures to regulate it constitutionally have as much chance to pass as those on flag burning - and neither should pass), there is little that Congress can do to regulate political speech on the Internet. 

As long as there are monied interests in politics, these issues will arise. The problem is capitalism itself. The truth is, even if capitalism is entirely replaced by a more cooperative economy, the governance of political speech should still be off the table - especially as authoritarian capitalism is in its eventual death throes. Eventually, workers will beat them at their own game.

I hope these comments have raised issues not previously discussed in this debate - which if taken to heart should end it.

I hope these comments have raised issues not previously discussed in this debate - which if taken to heart should end it.