Gov. Ron DeSantis Goes to War Against Big Tech

 

It’s time that someone started to fight back against big tech, and Governor Ron DeSantis is leading the pack. Here’s what he had to say a few days ago:

‘As these companies have grown and their influence has expanded, Big Tech has come to look more like Big Brother with each passing day,’ DeSantis told reporters at the Capitol. ‘But this is 2021, not 1984, and this is real life, not George Orwell’s fiction. These companies exert monopoly power over a centrally important forum in the public discourse and the access of information that Floridians rely on.’

The legislation he is considering helps to protect companies that post on these platforms by insisting that the tech companies give advance notice of removal, and they will be vulnerable to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Practices Law; if a candidate is removed during an election cycle, the tech companies would receive a $100,000 fine each day until the candidate’s access is restored.

Gov. DeSantis was brought on board at the initiative of Florida House of Representatives member Randy Fine. The media is trying to position their stances as their way to support President Trump, but DeSantis emphasized that the issues were much larger than any one person:

DeSantis cited multiple examples of overreach by social media content moderators, including censorship of criticism of the of coronavirus lock downs, banning the sitting U.S. president, the suppression of the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden story, and the ‘decapitation’ of Parler, a Twitter alternative popular with President Donald Trump’s supporters that was kicked offline by Amazon Web Services for purportedly failing to impose satisfactory content moderation.

The proposed legislation also allows users to “opt out of the various algorithms these platforms use to steer content or suppress content from the view of other users.”

There are some critical questions that are yet to be answered:

  • Will Gov. DeSantis follow through and back the legislation?
  • Will Florida have the power to hold big tech accountable?
  • Will other states follow Florida’s example and take action?

I hope the governor moves forward and that other governors back him up. It’s time.

Published in Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    My point about differentiating between the AT&T case and the Big Tech situation is that in AT&T’s case, the government destroyed a lot of its wealth. That won’t happen with Google and Facebook. Their wealth is the personal data they have. It’s their property unless the government figures out a legal way to make them destroy it, which I don’t see happening. 

    So I’m not worried about a case to consider them a public utility ending up in destroying private property, the way it did with AT&T.

    • #31
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    Suppose I am running for city council, and I ask to use your lawn to post my campaign signs; I am willing to pay. You oppose my candidacy, and you refuse. I take you to court.

    I’m all in favor of allowing Facebook, Google and Twitter to control what is posted on their lawns.  Unless they own 50 percent of the lawns in America, and 75 percent of those that are suitable for sign placement. In that case I would want to study the situation more closely.  

    • #32
  3. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    MarciN (View Comment):

    However, I’ve also been wondering about the “public utility” regulatory argument. Until I read the Timecabal” article, I wasn’t worked up about Facebook and Google’s Internet campaign for Biden and smear campaign against Trump. Now I am. I was really aware of all of the damaging stories the Big Tech made up about Trump and broadcast over the past year. It is not right that these companies are so active politically and so able to put stuff on my screen that I didn’t summon. 

    I don’t know about the monopoly issues, and I’ve always thought that the suit against AT&T was a “taking” (government theft) because they had built the infrastructure and they deserved to profit from that investment. But turnabout is fair play. 

    The Internet was built by the U.S. government, and it was wisely handed over to the public as a utility. I don’t think Facebook and Google, who are sitting on veritable gold mines as it is from their taking our personal data and storing it for future sale to anyone who wants to harm us, should be allowed to act like private-sector businesses. I think they should be treated as public utilities.

    The public utility argument has been bruited before, and it just does not apply.  First off, it basically quasi-nationalizes social media, and only the big ones at that.  How well has the government done with other things it has quasi-nationalized?  Not well, that’s for sure.  All that does is entrench those companies as the government-approved behemoths while locking out competitors who do not want the risks of getting that big and being captured too.  And then who actually does the work of regulating these industries once captured?  People hired right out of those companies.   Don’t think for a minute that Facebook or Twitter or Google fear this prospect – in fact, it’s exactly what they want.

    And are you aware that AT&T became the monopoly it did in no small part because of government regulation?  Is that the future you want for any internet company that gets big enough?  AT&T got really really rich dominating the US phone system for decades – not only did they charge you for the phone service, their rates were exorbitant even as the technology made the old rate structure increasingly irrelevant, they made you use only their hardware, which they leased to you, and they didn’t exactly keep their networks up to spec more than absolutely necessary.

    • #33
  4. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Thanks (as always!) for clarifying.

    Thanks!  I’ve never been credited with always clarifying.  Of being consistent, yes: occasionally Barfly and others credit me with always obfuscating.

    [EDIT: I re-read the sentence.  I had been basking in the praise.  But now I realize that you were saying you always thank me on those occasions when I do clarify.  Even so, it is a nice thought.]

     

    [TAGS: Attempted self-effacing humor, Forgetting one’s numerous promises to never attempt self-effacing humor on Ricochet again.]

    • #34
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    The public utility argument has been bruited before, and it just does not apply. First off, it basically quasi-nationalizes social media, and only the big ones at that. How well has the government done with other things it has quasi-nationalized? Not well, that’s for sure. All that does is entrench those companies as the government-approved behemoths while locking out competitors who do not want the risks of getting that big and being captured too. And then who actually does the work of regulating these industries once captured? People hired right out of those companies. Don’t think for a minute that Facebook or Twitter or Google fear this prospect – in fact, it’s exactly what they want.

    It depends on which prospect you’re talking about.  There are a lot of proposals for regulating Big Tech and it sounds like you’re arguing against some of those that didn’t come from Gov. De Santis.  It seems he is trying to avoid some of those problems. Whether successfully or not is less clear. 

    • #35
  6. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    The public utility argument has been bruited before, and it just does not apply. First off, it basically quasi-nationalizes social media, and only the big ones at that. How well has the government done with other things it has quasi-nationalized? Not well, that’s for sure. All that does is entrench those companies as the government-approved behemoths while locking out competitors who do not want the risks of getting that big and being captured too. And then who actually does the work of regulating these industries once captured? People hired right out of those companies. Don’t think for a minute that Facebook or Twitter or Google fear this prospect – in fact, it’s exactly what they want.

    It depends on which prospect you’re talking about. There are a lot of proposals for regulating Big Tech and it sounds like you’re arguing against some of those that didn’t come from Gov. De Santis. It seems he is trying to avoid some of those problems. Whether successfully or not is less clear.

    I was responding to Marci and what she proposed.

    • #36
  7. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MarciN (View Comment):
    However, I’ve also been wondering about the “public utility” regulatory argument. Until I read the Timecabal” article, I wasn’t worked up about Facebook and Google’s Internet campaign for Biden and smear campaign against Trump. Now I am. I was really aware of all of the damaging stories the Big Tech made up about Trump and broadcast over the past year. It is not right that these companies are so active politically and so able to put stuff on my screen that I didn’t summon. 

    We need to separate the questions:

    • Should Big Tech, with their enormous power to determine which speech will be heard, be regulated as a quasi-public utility?
    • Should Big Tech be allowed to deceive people, with a smear campaign?

    The second one is covered by our legal tradition: Jewish, Roman, Ecclesiastical, English/Viking.  It’s normal stuff for our legal eagles. 

    The first one is hard.

    We can cite the success of the Civil Rights Acts in eliminating the cruelty of public houses refusing to serve blacks. But we mustn’t forget that these laws overturned well-understood limits on the right of government to commandeer private property to prevent behavior that was merely mean-spirited or that we considered socially backward, not criminal. We were tempted by our good intentions onto a slippery slope: now the Federal and State governments have unlimited authority to engineer society. They decided that they wanted homosexuals to have the same privileges to violate property rights as people of different colors.  Then Lesbians to adopt children, then female impersonators to have special privileges, then for every kind of sexual pervert to corrupt our own children’s morals in mandatory schools, and so on.  

    In hindsight, it appears that we should have kept our traditional rights in tact, and peacefully ended discrimination in restaurants and so on by moral education.  These evils were already on the way out, rapidly.

    • #37
  8. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    in fact, it’s exactly what they want.

    Good point. I can see that. 

    • #38
  9. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Lots of good arguments here. 

    I guess I just need to pray that competitors arise, in which case, the less regulation the better. Skipsul is right. Lower the barriers to entry. 

     

    • #39
  10. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    We can cite the success of the Civil Rights Acts in eliminating the cruelty of public houses refusing to serve blacks. But we mustn’t forget that these laws overturned well-understood limits on the right of government to commandeer private property to prevent behavior that was merely mean-spirited or that we considered socially backward, not criminal. We were tempted by our good intentions onto a slippery slope: now the Federal and State governments have unlimited authority to engineer society. They decided that they wanted homosexuals to have the same privileges to violate property rights as people of different colors. Then Lesbians to adopt children, then female impersonators to have special privileges, then for every kind of sexual pervert to corrupt our own children’s morals in mandatory schools, and so on.

     

    I agree that the civil rights acts created new types of discrimination. I’m not sure segregation would have gone away on its own, but that’s for another day. 

    That said, those laws exist, and they include political affiliation. I have no doubt, however, that Google and Facebook are way ahead of me in avoiding those accusations and charges. 

    GE had a legal department bigger than the U.S. Justice Department in its heyday. I’m sure Facebook and Google do too. 

    • #40
  11. Danny Alexander Member
    Danny Alexander
    @DannyAlexander

    I’m not always on board with what Michael Lind has to say, and I vehemently disagree with the view he propounds in this article here about the rectitude of the 2020 presidential election.

    However, all that being said, I find it difficult to disagree with Lind’s assessment of Big Tech’s tyrannical turn and with his recommendation for halting the abusive rampage the sector has been on.

    For one thing, I like the fact that Lind in his prescription embraces the power of “and” — offer Big Tech platform companies a choice, while putting real teeth into the enforcement bite each would take.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-new-corporate-tyranny

    • #41
  12. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    One of two things will happen. He will be removed or he will be bought.

    I live in Florida and DeSantis is very smart.  He is a good person and more power to him as well as Congressman Matt Gaetz.  I really started to pay attention to DeSantis when he was invited by Netanyahu and Israel to come and share business ideas for a common purpose and show his support of The State of Israel back in May 2019.  That sold me – he’s the genuine article:

    https://www.flgov.com/2019/05/31/governor-ron-desantis-leads-historic-business-development-mission-to-israel-with-florida-delegation/

     

    • #42
  13. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    One of two things will happen. He will be removed or he will be bought.

    Or… he will win.

    • #43
  14. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    We can cite the success of the Civil Rights Acts in eliminating the cruelty of public houses refusing to serve blacks. But we mustn’t forget that these laws overturned well-understood limits on the right of government to commandeer private property to prevent behavior that was merely mean-spirited or that we considered socially backward, not criminal.

    That’s a good example to keep in mind. I’ve thought of it often when thinking of the problem of Big Tech censorship.  I’ll add another related example that I’ve mentioned a few times:

    We used to have the concept of “states rights” under which the Feds were forbidden to interfere with certain matters inside state jurisdictions. However, the country found the problem of slavery intolerable, especially after Dred Scott and the Fugutive Slave Act, when slave states insisted that non-slave states participate in their slavery system, too. The resulting conflict broke down the whole system of states rights, necessarily and unfortunately.

    Similarly, the country eventually decided that segregation in business places and public housing was intolerable, and the solution broke down many of the walls of separation between private and public domains. Ever since 1964 I have wished the Civil Rights Acts could have been accomplished by constitutional amendment rather than simple legislation, because a constitutional amendment could have placed limits on the further reach of government into areas that should remain under control of private business. Instead, we got legislation that established a precedent of government control of private business practices. 

    But what would have been the chances of a constitutional amendment in 1964? None at all.  And I have to agree that the situation was intolerable.  So we got what we got.

    If states had not been so belligerent in institutionalizing slavery, if segregationists had not been so belligerent in maintaining segregation, if more of us could have acted in our private capacities to end segregation, we probably could have continued with our old system of limited federal powers. 

    I think we’re now confronting a similar situation. It was one thing when Big Tech companies practiced arbitrary political censorship in the services they provide. But that isn’t good enough; they and their allies have also embarked on a seek and destroy mission to eliminate any chance of free conversation on the internet or in any other medium. It wasn’t good enough to destroy Parler; they are now going after the places where people went after Parler came down.  That is an intolerable situation and will not work itself out in the free market in time to save our constitutional system. So that means we’re probably going to break down the barriers against the power of government to regulate media companies. It seems that is going to be necessary and it is going to be bad for us.

    I’m still in favor of accomplishing the objective in ways that don’t break down the remaining barriers between public and private. But that’s going to mean doing more than sitting on our thumbs and reciting the rules about free markets and constitutional governmental limitations.  

     

    • #44
  15. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    We used to have the concept of “states rights” under which the Feds were forbidden to interfere with certain matters inside state jurisdictions. However, the country found the problem of slavery intolerable, especially after Dred Scott and the Fugutive Slave Act, when slave states insisted that non-slave states participate in their slavery system, too. The resulting conflict broke down the whole system of states rights, necessarily and unfortunately.

    This is exactly my understanding of why what happened, happened.  As Lincoln pointed out very clearly in the Second Inaugural Address, there was always an unresolved national matter to be settled, a contradiction, created by the Declaration.

    The Americans collectively fell into this passive state–it was tolerable for now. Overthrowing Parliament and King George first, and then fighting the War of 1812, and so on.  But it was not tolerable forever, and then many things came together to make it a crisis.  One of these was when the slavers demanded our collaboration in hunting down what they claimed were their lost livestock, and which we (according to our original contract with those same States) regarded as human beings.

    • #45
  16. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    Restricting Big Tech’s freedom of speech in this way will put us on a slippery slope, if it’s done.

    How do you see this, Mark? Are you saying that they are allowed to censor because they are not the government preventing free speech?

    Suppose I am running for city council, and I ask to use your lawn to post my campaign signs; I am willing to pay. You oppose my candidacy, and you refuse. I take you to court.

    The court should say, if Susan doesn’t want use her property to promote a candidate she is opposed to, this court will not force her to. It would violate her right to free speech.

    If we pass an amendment that says that government may force you in most cases to support some political or religious speech against your will, simply because another person wants you to, we could be on a slippery slope.

    I’m wondering, does the government have any role in this environment to protect the public, since these companies are nearly a monopoly?

    It would not save a republic where the people no longer have morals, knowledge of history, and thinking skills to regulate their social behavior. People like Google’s, Twitter’s, and Facebook’s workers and management. That’s what we conservatives are trying to do: use the unlimited force of a Progressivist-controlled government to force Americans to behave like Americans even though they have been indoctrinated to no longer believe in American religious and political principles. So that we will not have to take on the uncomfortable job of regaining control of our institutions of education from the Progressives.

     

    The thing is the center will always be corrupt and if cleaned up a bit will immediately head back.  It has to be bottom up and that is very difficult to return to, presumably not impossible. 

    • #46
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.