1、 itif.org The Conservative Weaponization of Government Against Tech ASH JOHNSON|OCTOBER 2024 Some conservatives have grievances with“Big Tech”companies and would marshal the power of government to punish them.But the policy proposals stemming from this conservative“techlash”would have significant co

2、sts for consumers,businesses,and the economy.KEY TAKEAWAYS Conservatives historically have viewed“big government”as the enemy,but todays anti-tech conservatives are willing to use it as a cudgel to punish“Big Tech.”Anti-tech conservatives blame tech companies for corrupting children,censoring conser

3、vative viewpoints,surveilling conservative users,and wielding their market power to push left-leaning ideology.Despite their differences,anti-tech conservatives and many liberals propose similar solutions,such as more government regulation,more antitrust enforcement,and more liability for tech compa

4、nies.These anti-tech solutions come with high costs for America,including economic costs,free speech restrictions,reduced ability to compete with other countries,and missing out on the benefits of technology and innovation.Policymakers can more effectively address the legitimate issues conservatives

5、 have raised with pro-innovation solutions that focus on maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks associated with technology.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 2 CONTENTS Key Takeaways.1 Introduction.2 The Conservative Techlash.3 Anti-Tech Arguments.4 Argument#1:S

6、ocial Media Is Corrupting Children.5 Argument#2:Tech Platforms Censor Conservative Viewpoints.7 Argument#3:Tech Firms Surveil Users.9 Argument#4:Liberal Tech Firms Have Too Much Market Power.11 Pro-Innovation Solutions.12 Children on Social Media.13 Censorship and Bias.13 Data Privacy.14 Antitrust.1

7、5 Conclusion.16 Endnotes.17 INTRODUCTION“Big government”has historically been the enemy of conservatives,with policy platforms centered around less government spending,lower taxes,and a free market economy with minimal government intervention.But for a subset of modern conservatives,a new opponent h

8、as emerged:“Big Tech.”These anti-tech conservatives accuse large tech companies of suppressing free speech,eroding traditional conservative values,corrupting Americas youth,and pushing left-leaning ideology.Many of these anti-tech conservatives are even willing to use the hammer of big government to

9、 punish Big Tech,if that is what it takes.This conservative techlash,or backlash against large tech companies and technology more generally,arose out of real concerns.1 Todays children are growing up in a world that looks very different from decades past,with new opportunities as well as new risks.A

10、dditionally,the state of political discourse has fundamentally changed since the advent of social media,amplifying the voices of average Americans on platforms owned by private companies to an even greater extent than traditional media such as radio and television,which has likewise created new chal

11、lenges.However,the policies anti-tech conservatives propose to solve technology-related problemsand punish Big Techcome with significant costs for consumers,businesses,and the American economy.There is a better way.Instead of focusing only on the potential risks associated with modern technology and

12、 ignoring the potential benefits,conservatives should focus on minimizing risks INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 3 and maximizing benefits.With this approach,conservatives can solve their problems with Big Tech while maintaining a light-touch approach in line with conse

13、rvative values of small government.Most importantly,this approach comes with far fewer costs.This report analyzes the beliefs underlying the conservative techlash.It focuses on four conservative arguments:social media is corrupting children,tech platforms censor conservative viewpoints,tech firms su

14、rveil users,and liberal tech firms have too much market power.It then presents the anti-tech solutions to these problems and their associated costs.Finally,the report recommends pro-innovation alternatives that would address conservatives concerns while preserving many of the benefits of technology

15、for Americans and America.THE CONSERVATIVE TECHLASH The core belief behind the conservative techlash is that Big Tech,or large tech companies,are colluding with other liberal institutions,including government,media,and academic institutions,to promote left-leaning ideology and silence opposition fro

16、m conservatives.To anti-tech conservatives,these actions represent a threat to traditional conservative American values and need to be stopped at all costs,even if it results in bigger and more powerful government.The Heritage Foundation,a conservative American think tank,is a major source of this n

17、arrative,though this was not always the case.Just a few years ago,Heritage was more committed to a small government approach to Big Tech.2 However,as the techlash has spread from liberal to conservative circles,Heritage has changed its tune.In Mandate for Leadership:The Conservative Promise,Kevin Ro

18、berts provides a detailed blueprint for what it wants the next Republican presidents agenda to be,anti-tech beliefs are front and center.Notable proposals include banning TikTok,taking antitrust action against Big Tech,and restricting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,a law that shields

19、platforms and their users for liability for third-party content.3 Heritage has also expressed its anti-tech positions in other writings.One report calls for“aggressive reforms”such as changes to antitrust law,investigations into targeted advertising practices,personal liability for Big Tech executiv

20、es,restrictions to Section 230,private rights of action,and more.The report warns that absent such changes,“Big Tech will continue to erode individual liberties,segment the American citizenry,and stunt human flourishing and self-governance.”4 Another piece puts this more bluntly,stating,“Big Tech is

21、 an enemy of the American people.”5 The conservative techlash is not limited to research institutions.Multiple noteworthy conservative politicians have espoused anti-tech beliefs over the past few years,including former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.Trump has a history of

22、 opposing Section 230,which some conservatives view as enabling censorship by tech platforms.6 More recently,during his 2024 presidential campaign,Trump alluded to Big Tech companies influencing elections and“destroying”Americas youth and called these companies“too big”and“too powerful,”though he st

23、opped short of advocating for these companies destruction,acknowledging their importance to Americas ability to compete with other countries.7 The Trump administration also started multiple antitrust cases against and investigations into Big Tech companies.Trumps 2024 vice-presidential candidate,Sen

24、.J.D.Vance(R-OH),has also spoken out against Big Tech,despite his history as a former tech investor and venture capitalist.Like Trump,he has INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 4 criticized Section 230,arguing that the law gives tech platforms the power to“deny access to m

25、odern forms of communication for having the wrong political views.”8 He has also supported efforts to break up Big Tech companies and praised the current chair of the Federal Trade Commission(FTC),Lina Khan,for her aggressive antitrust stance,calling her“the best person within the Biden administrati

26、on.”9 This“Khanservative”approach to antitrust is unfortunately growing in popularity.10 While anti-tech conservatives arguments for targeting Big Tech naturally rely on conservative ideals,their proposed solutions are strikingly similar to those proposed by anti-tech liberals:more antitrust enforce

27、ment,more liability for tech companies,and stricter privacy laws with private rights of action,to name a few.While conservatives and liberals frequently have opposite goals when advocating for these changesfor example,liberals want platforms to take down more speech,while conservatives want platform

28、s to take down less speechthey have one major goal in common:Both seek to punish Big Tech for not adhering enough to their values.This retaliatory mindset hearkens to banana republics,where passion and spite,rather than the rule of law,governs.Moreover,it often leads to bad policy,particularly when

29、punishing Big Tech is weighed more heavily than other goals such as innovation,economic growth,competitiveness with China,and consumer welfare.ANTI-TECH ARGUMENTS This report focuses on four of the most common arguments anti-tech conservative figures and organizations make.Because anti-tech conserva

30、tives believe in stopping Big Tech at all costs,many of their proposed policies that address these four arguments would come with high costs for consumers,businesses,and the American economycosts most Americans would likely not be willing to pay,especially if there are alternative solutions.Table 1:

31、Anti-tech conservative arguments and the cost of proposed solutions Argument Anti-tech Solution Cost Pro-Innovation Solution Social media is corrupting children Ban social media for children Require children to obtain parental consent to access social media Potential First Amendment violations Child

32、ren lose out on the many benefits of social media Create an optional child flag Create more parental controls Tech platforms censor conservative viewpoints Government regulation of content moderation Require equal treatment of political content Eliminate or restrict Section 230 Require interoperabil

33、ity between platforms Potential First Amendment violations More censorship Less beneficial content moderation,creating a“free-for-all”Internet Require transparency around content moderation Set content moderation standards INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 5 Argument Ant

34、i-tech Solution Cost Pro-Innovation Solution Tech firms surveil users Pass a broad privacy law High economic costs Costs passed on to consumers Pass a targeted privacy law Liberal tech firms have too much market power Break up Big Tech firms Reduced ability to compete with other countries in tech Ne

35、twork effects will lead to consolidation regardless Will not solve censorship concerns Follow the consumer welfare standard and avoid breakup remedies Argument#1:Social Media Is Corrupting Children The first argument,and the one that has made the most headway in leading to legislation,is that social

36、 media is corrupting Americas children,introducing them to left-leaning ideology,age-inappropriate content,and predatory behaviorleading to negative mental health outcomes and other forms of harm.The primary ideological concern conservatives express regarding children on social media is exposure to

37、LGBT-related,and particularly transgender-related,content.Heritage wrote,in an article on“How Big Tech Turns Kids Trans,”that“the spike in teens using social media and identifying as transgender is no mere coincidence.”11 The reasoning behind this argument is,first,that social media and other online

38、 spaces are allegedly designed to promote transgender content and censor dissenting opinions;and second,that as teens use social media,their mental health and satisfaction with life will decline,causing them to seek solutions in the form of gender transition.Exposure to left-leaning ideology on soci

39、al media is not conservatives only concern when it comes to children.Along with many on the left,anti-tech conservatives argue that social media exposes children to inappropriate content and harmful activity,including predatory behavior,which leads to negative mental health outcomes and even,in extr

40、eme cases,sexual exploitation.Some of the real or perceived harms conservatives see facing children on social media include predatory behavior from adults,exposure to pornography and other adult content,an increased risk of developing depression or anxiety,unrealistic body standards contributing to

41、eating disorders,an increased risk of self-harm or suicide,substance use and abuse,and social media addiction.12 Speaking in support of his states social media ban for kids,Florida House Speaker Paul Renner called the Internet“a dark alley for our children where predators target them”and blamed soci

42、al media for higher rates of depression,self-harm,and suicide.13 The Heritage Foundation accused social media companies of“preying on children,such as drug dealers,to get them addicted,”arguing that this addiction leads to mental illness and damages family bondseven going so far INFORMATION TECHNOLO

43、GY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 6 as to call social media companies practices“industrial-scale child abuse.”14 These claims follow a predictable pattern as old as media itself:From comic books to video games,each new form of media that becomes mainstream is followed by a wave of concern o

44、ver how it is detrimental to society,and especially children.15 Anti-tech conservatives proposed solution to social medias alleged corrupting influence on children is to ban social media for users under a certain age unless those users obtain parental consent.Multiple statespredominately red states

45、such as Florida,Georgia,Louisiana,Mississippi,Texas,and Utahhave passed such bans in recent years.16 A few of these laws have been challenged in court over free speech concerns,with judges blocking Arkansass and Mississippis bans and Utah lawmakers replacing their states ban with less-restrictive ru

46、les requiring tech platforms to default to certain privacy settings for minors accounts.17 Critics of these state bans argue that they are unconstitutional on two fronts.First,children have free speech rights,and requiring them to obtain parental consent to use social media violates those rights.Sec

47、ond,requiring adult users to verify their age in order to access social mediaa process that typically involves handing over some form of government-issued identification,thereby giving up their personal informationplaces an unconstitutional burden on adults to exercise their free speech rights.18 Th

48、is is different from requiring adults to show ID to purchase age-restricted products,such as alcohol,or enter age-restricted places,such as bars,because those activities are not inherently speech-related,whereas social media is.While anti-tech conservatives arguments for targeting Big Tech naturally

49、 rely on conservative ideals,their proposed solutions are strikingly similar to those proposed by anti-tech liberals.These concerns are legitimate,but they are not the only cost of banning social media for kids.Bans also cause children to lose out on the many benefits of social media.According to th

50、e American Psychological Association(APA),which wrote in a May 2023 health advisory that“using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people,”some of the benefits of social media for children include social interaction,connection to peers in similar circumstances,promotion and

51、 reinforcement of positive attitudes and behaviors,and support for members of marginalized groups.19 Rather than advocating for social media bans,APA instead recommends steps parents can take to reduce the risk of harm from social media and the next steps for researchers to better understand how soc

52、ial media affects children.Additionally,there are changes social media platforms themselves continue to make to protect their young users.For example,certain platforms have separate spaces designed entirely for children,such as YouTube Kids,TikTok for Younger Users,and Instagram Teen Accounts.20 Ban

53、ning social media use for children under a certain age would prevent companies from continuing to innovate and create more children-and teen-friendly spaces.Furthermore,banning social media out of concern over political bias or potential harm is a slippery slope.There are many activities that put ch

54、ildren in harms way,either physically or mentally.Children can get injured on playgrounds,in swimming pools and hot tubs,or by participating in sports,but lawmakers do not ban these activities because they also have benefits for children and there are less-restrictive safety measures available.Child

55、ren can be exposed to INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 7 inappropriate content in books,movies,music,TV,or video games,but lawmakers do not ban these forms of media,nor should they.21 Meanwhile,if anti-tech conservatives believe social media exposes young people to too

56、much left-leaning ideology,they should take the same approach they have taken to other industries.For example,some conservatives accuse Hollywood of being biased in favor of liberal views.22 But no red states have banned children from going to the movies without parental consent.The only reason soci

57、al media has received different treatment is because it is a relatively new technology,leading many to panic over its potential impact on society.23 However,regulating out of panic will not lead to effective policy solutions.A more balanced approach would continue to allow children to benefit from s

58、ocial media while giving them and their parents more control over their online experience.Argument#2:Tech Platforms Censor Conservative Viewpoints The second argument,which has also resulted in legislation,is that major tech platforms are left-leaning and collude with other left-leaning institutions

59、 to remove conservative speech and ban conservative viewers.There are many examples of conservatives making this argument,but one that stands out is the Hunter Biden laptop story.In short,the New York Post,a conservative news outlet,published a story in October 2020 breaking the news of content on a

60、 laptop belonging to Hunter Biden,son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden,including emails to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm,sexually explicit images and videos,and a video depicting illicit drug use.24 After the story was published,Twitter suspended the Posts account and barred any

61、one from tweeting the story or sending it via direct message,labeling it“hacked material.”25 This led many conservatives to accuse Twitter of censorship and election interference.26 Then-CEO of Twitter,Jack Dorsey,along with other former executives involved in the decision,later admitted that this d

62、ecision was“wrong.”27 Another major example of alleged censorship came in the wake of the January 6 protest on the Capitol,which led most major social media platformsincluding Facebook,Twitter(now X),YouTube,Instagram,Snapchat,and moreto ban or suspend Trumps accounts for inciting violence and to re

63、move communities or hashtags associated with Trump and skepticism of the 2020 presidential election results.28 These bans and suspensions led to a debate over whether tech platforms should remove the accounts of democratically elected officials or candidates for office,particularly in high-ranking p

64、ositions such as the presidency,and whether doing so posed a risk to democracy.29 In addition,following January 6,Apple and Google removed the conservative social media platform Parler from their app stores,and Amazon Web Services removed the website from its cloud hosting services,with all three co

65、mpanies citing concerns over violent content.30 These actions intensified conservatives censorship concerns,highlighting that not only could individual platforms remove conservative users and content,but app stores and hosting services could remove entire apps and websites that catered to conservati

66、ves.These are far from the only examples.Many prominent conservative figures,media outlets,and institutions have faced social media bans or suspensions.31 Additionally,all the American elected officials who have been banned or suspended from social media platforms as of March 2023 INFORMATION TECHNO

67、LOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 8 were Republicans.32 Conservatives also point to tech platforms removing certain opinions on divisive topics,such as transgender issues,critical race theory,and COVID-19,or labeling these opinions as“misinformation.”33 There are multiple proposed solutio

68、ns to tech platforms alleged bias.The first proposed solution,which Florida and Texas attempted in 2021,is government regulation of content moderation.Florida passed S.B.7072,a law that fines social media platforms$250,000 per day for deplatforming any political candidate running for statewide offic

69、e and$25,000 per day for deplatforming any other political candidate.The law also allows Floridian users to sue social media platforms for censoring or deplatforming them.34 Meanwhile,Texass H.B.20 prohibits large social media platforms from censoring users,defined as“to block,ban,remove,de-platform

70、,demonetize,de-boost,restrict,deny equal access or visibility to,or otherwise discriminate against expression,and allows Texan users to sue platforms for violations.”35 Technology industry groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association(CCIA)challenged both laws in court,ci

71、ting First Amendment concerns.Social media platforms are private actors with First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association,which includes the freedom to disassociate themselves from certain forms of speechsuch as speech that violates a platforms terms of serviceand individuals who

72、regularly engage in those forms of speech.Thus,by punishing social media platforms for removing certain content or users,NetChoice and CCIA argued that the Florida and Texas state governments were violating those platforms First Amendment rights.36 Repealing Section 230 would likely lead to less fre

73、e speech online,not more.If tech platforms were liable for third-party content,they would have to further restrict the types of content they allow.Court orders have prevented Floridas and Texass laws from going into effect.The Supreme Court ruled on both laws in the case of Moody v.NetChoice in July

74、 2024,remanding the cases to the Fifth Circuit Court and instructing it and Eleventh Circuit Court to consider the laws First Amendment implications in their review.37 An alternative proposal would specifically require tech platforms to treat all political content equally.However,this similarly runs

75、 afoul of platforms First Amendment rights.Platforms may not want to associate themselves with certain extreme beliefs on either side of the political spectrum.Not only would platforms risk alienating users by allowing certain extreme beliefs,they would also risk alienating advertisers,which many pl

76、atforms rely on in order to continue offering their services for free or at a low cost to users.Importantly,it is within platforms rights to choose to associate with or disassociate from certain beliefs.Another proposed solution to tech platforms alleged bias is to repeal or restrict Section 230 to

77、limit or remove platforms intermediary liability protections,which some conservatives see as enabling platforms censorshipcompared with some liberals,who see Section 230 as enabling a lack of censorship.Republicans in Congress have introduced multiple bills that would either repeal Section 230 or ch

78、ange the language of the law to make platforms liable if they remove content that does not meet certain criteria,such as being obscene,violent,harassing,or illegal.38 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 9 Repealing Section 230 would likely lead to less free speech online,n

79、ot more.If tech platforms were liable for third-party content,they would have to further restrict the types of content they allow by enforcing stricter standards to avoid the possibility of users posting or sharing potentially illegal content.This could lead to“collateral censorship,”a form of self-

80、censorship that occurs“when A censors B out of fear that the government will hold A liable for the effects of Bs speech.”39 In other words,platforms would err on the side of removing more content,even if that content is permissible,rather than risk leaving up content that could land them in legal tr

81、ouble.They could even ban entire categories of speech,such as political speech,or categories of users.Limiting the types of speech platforms can remove without risking liability poses the opposite problem,as doing so would change the incentive for platforms when moderating content.Currently,platform

82、s have more freedom to remove content they consider to be potentially harmful to their users,but under a higher standard,platforms may raise their standards for content removal and choose not to remove some potentially harmful content.While this change may seem like a win for conservatives who want

83、platforms to remove less conservative speech,in practice,it would make the Internet a far more hostile environment for users,including children.Platforms would be less likely to remove forms of content that fall into the gray area of being harmful but not illegal,including foreign disinformation,fak

84、e news,harassment,spam,and clear hate speech.Finally,another proposed solution to allegations that mainstream tech platforms are biased against conservatives is requiring interoperability between platforms.The aim of this requirement would be to allow competing social media platforms to interconnect

85、,ensuring that users can communicate across platforms.In other words,X would have to allow Parler users to make posts or send messages and vice versa without users having to create separate accounts for each service.This would function similar to email:There are no barriers in place preventing someo

86、ne with a Gmail account from emailing someone with an Outlook account,even though each person uses a different email provider.This type of interoperability requirement would make it virtually impossible to effectively deplatform misbehaving users,unless all platforms followed the same rules regardin

87、g banning or suspending users,as banned or suspended users could always join a new platform.Kicking users off X would be meaningless if they could still make posts and send messages from Parler.Although this approach would solve conservatives concerns with conservative users being deplatformed,it cr

88、eates new problems by restricting platforms from creating their own rules for what content and activity is or is not permissible,allowing bad actors to escape consequences for breaking a platforms rules,and opening users of any platform to potentially unwelcome content and activity from users of oth

89、er platforms.Argument#3:Tech Firms Surveil Users The third argument is that tech firms surveil users,which is of concern to conservatives for multiple reasons.Many tech firms collect data about users to recommend content and deliver targeted ads.However,conservatives argue that tech firms also monit

90、or users to counter and control extremism,and that this surveillance often leads social media platforms to label their viewpoints as extremist and targeting them.Additionally,conservatives express concerns over tech firms sharing Americans data with China.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION

91、|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 10 To the first point,Heritage wrote,“Tools originally created for legitimate purposes are poised to be weaponized against a subset of American citizens.The next phase of digital surveillance will likely consist of broadening the fight against domestic extremism to include suppres

92、sing conservative content.”40 The organization points to Google co-founder Sergey Brin comparing Trump voters to“extremists”in a leaked video of a Google employee meeting.41“They will not stop with child safety or strict counterterrorism,”Heritage wrote,warning that left-leaning tech companies will

93、repurpose child safety and counterterrorism tools to surveil and censor conservatives.42 Second,anti-tech conservatives are concerned with the influence of China on dominant tech companies.Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok is the clearest example of this influence,leading many conservatives

94、 and even some liberals to call for banning the app in the United States.This effort culminated in Congress passing a law in April 2024 giving ByteDance,developer of TikTok,a year to divest TikToks U.S.assets or face a ban.43 However,TikTok is not the only company anti-tech conservatives accuse of g

95、etting in bed with the Communist Party of China(CCP).Heritage has accused all of Americas largest tech firms of“funneling data about Americans to the CCP”and letting the CCP“censor Chinese users on their platforms”and“set their corporate policies”in exchange for“cheap labor and regulatory special tr

96、eatment.”44 Proponents of a private right of action frame it as a gift to consumers,providing them with access to remedies against organizations that have violated their privacy.However,even in the case of legitimate privacy lawsuits,the payouts are often small and attorney fees are often high.Anti-

97、tech conservatives who believe tech companies use digital surveillance tools against American users,and particularly conservative Americans,may be more likely to support passing a broad federal privacy law that comes with high costs for American businesses,consumers,and the economy.To be clear,no pr

98、ivacy law will stop companies from having some amount of data about their consumersthe mere act of making a transaction or signing up for a service requires turning over some databut a broader privacy law would place harsher restrictions on the use of data.For example,Heritage supports a federal dat

99、a privacy framework that would require consumers to affirmatively opt in to data sharing,as opposed to giving consumers the ability to opt out.45 Opt-in consent requirements lead fewer users to share their data because most users select the default option of not giving consent,often for irrational r

100、easons.Additionally,obtaining opt-in consent costs significantly more than an opt-out system,wherein users can revoke consent to have their data collected.Given the thin margins involved in data-related transactions such as targeted advertising,companies would likely pass these costs onto consumers,

101、either directly or indirectly.46 Opt-in consent requirements assume more data collection is harmful,ignoring the many ways data can improve many facets of Americans everyday life,from health care and transportation to education and agriculture.Data collection even benefits users on an individual lev

102、el by enabling tech platforms to show users content they are more likely to enjoy.Another key feature of a broad privacy law that some anti-tech conservatives support is a private right of action,which allows users to sue organizations directly for civil penalties.47 A private right of action is by

103、far the most expensive provision a federal privacy law could contain.The INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 11 Information Technology and Innovation Foundation(ITIF)estimated the annual cost of duplicative enforcement mechanisms would be$2.7 billion annually in enforcemen

104、t if a federal data privacy law included a broad private right of action,whereas a more targeted law with no private right of action would cost approximately$210 million.48 Proponents of a private right of action frame it as a gift to consumers,providing them with access to remedies against organiza

105、tions that have violated their privacy.However,even in the case of legitimate privacy lawsuits,the payouts are often small and attorney fees are often high.Ultimately,privacy lawyers are the only group that would significantly benefit from a broad private right of action.49 Meanwhile,the economy wou

106、ld suffer as the high cost of litigation dramatically drives up costs for organizations that handle personal data,diverting funds away from innovating and creating new products and services.Consumers would also suffer as organizations pass these costs along to them by driving up prices,charging for

107、services that were previously free,or offering discounts less frequently.Argument#4:Liberal Tech Firms Have Too Much Market Power The fourth and final argument is that major tech companies are left-leaning and have too much power to control speech in America,to the detriment of conservatives.Heritag

108、e has accused Big Tech firms of“abusing dominant positions in the market”and“taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed to favor their business models over those of their competitors.”50 In a private meeting with other conservatives,Florida Governor Ron DeSantis reportedly called for break

109、ing up Big Tech companies,saying that“theyre just too big,they have too much power,”they are”ruining our country,”and“theyre exercising a more negative influence on our society than the trusts that got broken up at the early 20th century,”referring to trusts such as Standard Oil.51 These alleged neg

110、ative influences are twofold.First,anti-tech conservatives believe that allowing left-leaning tech companies to dominate the market,particularly when it comes to controlling online speech,is detrimental to conservatives and conservative start-ups.For example,Vance called for breaking up Google,argui

111、ng that“monopolistic control of information in our society resides with an explicitly progressive technology company.”52 Many conservatives also argue that Apple and Google taking conservative social media start-up Parler off their app stores and Amazon removing it from its cloud hosting service wer

112、e anti-competitive actions that demonstrated major firms control over the market.Parler CEO John Matze accused Amazon of trying to“completely remove free speech off the internet”and called Apple a“software monopoly.”53 Anti-tech conservatives proposed solution to Big Techs market power is to break u

113、p these firms.However,there are multiple reasons why this approach is unlikely to address conservatives censorship concerns or worries over Chinese influence.To begin,none of the ongoing antitrust cases against Big Techinvestigations that all began,notably,during the Trump administrationare meaningf

114、ully related to concerns surrounding the censorship of conservative speech.54 There is a reason why censorship allegations dont constitute a viable antitrust claim:A platform refusing to deal with a content provider does not run afoul of the antitrust laws unless there is some exclusion of a competi

115、tor,which is not the case when it comes to a platform simply unilaterally removing content it doesnt compete with.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 12 Similarly,structural antitrust remedies are unlikely to deal with alleged censorship issues meaningfully.The size of the

116、 large platforms is driven by economies of scale and,in particular,network effects.Social media is just that:social.Users flock to the same platforms their friends,family,colleagues,and communities use.As such,breaking up X,for example,into two companiesX and“Y”would only last so long before users w

117、ould default to one platform over the other.In addition to this type of“horizontal”breakup,some conservatives have taken aim at vertical integration by Big Tech,such as Google search and YouTube being under the same company.But here again,a solution preventing this type of vertical integrationforcin

118、g Google to divest YouTubewould not only come at the expense of efficiency and economies of scope,but also similarly do little in practice to address conservatives concerns about censorship.That is,if conservatives are right in that the technology space is a bastion of liberal values,divesting YouTu

119、be from Google would be much more likely to create two liberal companies than to create one conservative and one liberal.The reality is a large share of corporate America has adopted what conservatives would call liberal social values.To the extent Big Tech does this,they are not the anomaly.While X

120、i Jinping,FTC Chair Lina Khan,and anti-tech conservatives all appear to share the goal of preventing American Big Tech and the rest of corporate America from achieving the scale and dynamism needed to win globally,it is only China that ultimately wins.Amidst an ongoing technology race in key areas s

121、uch as artificial intelligence and robotics,the scale enjoyed by large American technology companies is essential to underwrite the billions of dollars in investments needed for the next-generation innovations that will keep the West technologically on top.The hour is already later than many realize

122、:As of 2020,China was the leading producer in 7 of the 10 strategically important industries in ITIFs Hamilton Index,which assesses national performance in the competition for advanced industries.55 China,ever the“fast follower,”also recognizes how antitrust policy can further its ends.For example,w

123、hile China is busy scaling up its own technology firms through mergers and state subsidies,Chinas antitrust regulator“is holding back its required green light for mergers that involve American companies as a technology war with Washington intensifies.”56 All the while,the Biden administration has is

124、sued its own merger guidelines,which create further roadblocks for U.S.firms seeking to gain scale.In other words,while Chinas Xi Jinping,FTC Chair Lina Khan,and anti-tech conservatives all appear to share the goal of preventing American Big Tech and the rest of corporate America from achieving the

125、scale and dynamism needed to win globally,it is only China that ultimately wins.57 PRO-INNOVATION SOLUTIONS There are alternative solutions to the problems some conservatives have with technology and large tech companies.As opposed to the anti-tech approach,which would cut Americans off from many of

126、 the benefits of technologyincluding technology-driven innovation and economic growtha pro-innovation and pro-tech approach would focus on minimizing the risks associated with technology while maximizing the benefits.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 13 Children on Socia

127、l Media First,to address concerns that social media is corrupting children,Congress should pass legislation requiring device operating systems to create an opt-in“trustworthy child flag”for user accounts,available when first setting up a device and later in a devices settings,that signals to apps an

128、d websitesincluding social media platformsthat a user is underaged and requiring apps and websites that serve age-restricted content to check for this signal for their users and block underaged users from this content.58 This approach would serve as a less invasive alternative to age verification.Ra

129、ther than using ID checks to determine whether to activate this child flag option,parents could activate or disable it depending on their own values and the maturity of their children.Additionally,devices could default to certain parental controls recommended for children.Because this approach does

130、not require anyone to disclose or verify their identity,it does not create privacy risks by forcing users to share their government IDs or allowing online services to link their online activity to their offline identities.It is also a low-impact approach,allowing adults to continue using the Interne

131、t as they do today.Congress should pass legislation requiring device operating systems to create an opt-in“trustworthy child flag”for user accounts.Congress should require tech platforms to not only create a child flag,but also develop interoperable parental controls that allow parents to easily man

132、age their childrens online safety and privacy across multiple platforms,giving parents sufficient oversight of their childrens online activity.These controls should be easy to access,set up,and change.In order to ensure parents understand how to effectively use these tools when they are available,Co

133、ngress should also provide funding for digital literacy initiatives that teach parents how to keep their children safe online.Censorship and Bias To address concerns over bias and censorship on tech platforms,Congress should pass legislation setting transparency requirements for these platforms cont

134、ent moderation decisions.This is a point of agreement between the pro-innovation and anti-tech crowd,as transparency requirements are also outlined as a solution in Heritages Mandate for Leadership.59 Congress should require platforms to clearly describe what content and behavior are allowed and not

135、 allowed,how they enforce those rules,and how users can appeal moderation decisions.Additionally,the law should require platforms to enforce their rules consistently and create an appeals process for content moderation decisions wherever one does not already exist.To further increase transparency su

136、rrounding content moderation,Congress should require platforms to release publicly accessible annual reports,including data on how many and what types of rule-breaking content and behavior companies removed from the platforms,how many of those decisions were appealed by users,and how many of those a

137、ppeals were successful.Additionally,the United States should take the lead in establishing a multistakeholder forum to develop a set of voluntary,consensus-based guidelines for tech platforms to follow when moderating online political speech.These guidelines should create common definitions of INFOR

138、MATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 14 different types of harmful content and establish best practices for classifying and responding to such content based on evidenced-based research.For example,these guidelines should specify the types of information platforms should provide

139、to users about content that is removed,labeled,de-monetized,or otherwise restricted on their platforms,as well as the type of redress and appeals mechanisms they should put in place to allow users to appeal decisions.Similarly,these guidelines should specify recommended oversight mechanisms to ensur

140、e fair and equitable enforcement of rules and offer details on what types of special accounts platforms should recognize,such as for elected officials,and how to make those determinations.Finally,these guidelines should create a process for designating trusted flaggersor third parties that reliably

141、classify harmful contentplatforms can use to improve their content moderation.60 Congress should set transparency requirements for platforms content moderation decisions.Instead of shifting the burden of resolving problems related to online speech and censorship entirely on industry or government,th

142、is approach would bring together various stakeholders around solutions that foster trust,increase transparency,and mitigate threats.There are limits to what tech companies can do on their own because policymakers and the public often do not trust that these companies are acting in the public interes

143、t.And there are limits to what policymakers can achieve on their own due to partisan disagreements and because legislative restrictions on content moderation raise free speech concerns.Finally,proposed structural and technical changes to social media would likely not only fail to resolve free speech

144、 concerns,but also likely make things worse.Data Privacy To address privacy concerns,Congress should pass a comprehensive federal data privacy law that sets a national standard for consumer data protection and preempts state and local governments from passing their own laws that would add to or subt

145、ract from these protections.Doing so would create a consistent set of rules for all U.S.organizations to follow,minimizing confusion and costs.The law should be based on a standard of tangible consumer harm when assessing penalties,creating a system of incentives to promote desirable behavior while

146、discouraging undesirable behavior in a way that limits compliance costs and avoids restricting productivity and innovation.Congress should pass a comprehensive federal data privacy law that sets a national standard for consumer data protection and preempts state and local governments.Any federal pri

147、vacy law should avoid creating a private right of action that would unnecessarily expose companies to substantial legal costs,forcing them to focus more on fighting meritless lawsuits and less on designing safe and innovative products and services for consumers.Additionally,federal privacy legislati

148、on should only require organizations to obtain affirmative(opt-in)consent if they are collecting sensitive personal data,such as health or financial data.Organizations collecting nonsensitive personal data should be required to adhere to an opt-out standard or should only be required to provide noti

149、ce and choice.Doing so would reduce both INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 15 the compliance costs and the hidden costs associated with obtaining opt-in consent in most cases while still increasing transparency around data collection and giving users greater control.Over

150、all,a more targeted federal data privacy law would cost$6 billion per year,95 percent less than a broad,General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR)-style law,which would cost$122 billion annually.61 This includes both compliance costs and additional“hidden”costs that represent the economic impact of lo

151、wer consumer efficiency,lower productivity,opportunity costs from less access to data,and lower ad effectiveness.62 A more targeted federal data privacy law would enshrine important consumer privacy rights,prevent real privacy harms,preempt inconsistent state laws,and minimize the impact on producti

152、vity and innovation.This approach would strike a balance that benefits consumers and businesses and allows the data-driven Internet economy to continue to thrive.Antitrust Under the Biden administration,the FTC and Department of Justice have taken a new approach to antitrust,straying from the guidel

153、ines and principles of previous administrations that the antitrust laws are fundamentally a“consumer welfare proscription.”That is,whereas modern antitrust standards prioritize protecting consumers and curbing monopolistic behavior,this new approach focuses on protecting competitors and preserving d

154、econcentrated market structures in order to protect democracy.Indeed,these“neo-Brandeisians”are inherently skeptical of digital markets by virtue of network effects they believe lead to dominance.As a result,they seek to use antitrust law to break up Big Tech firms even if their conduct does not har

155、m consumers.63 This approach to antitrust would undermine innovation and economic growth,discouraging investment and development at a time when the United States is already struggling to stay competitive,particularly against China.Americas history of high-tech antitrust experience suggests a cautiou

156、s approach:The biggest high-tech antitrust cases thus far have all either proved to be ill founded and likely to have serious adverse consequences if there are ultimately breakups.64 For example,despite cases against IBM and AT&T in the 1980s,it was changing technology,not antitrust intervention,tha

157、t led to changes in the industry.In contrast,requiring dominant tech companies to modify certain carefully selected business practices,such as in the landmark U.S.v.Microsoft case,or other solutions such as adhering to a federal privacy law or implementing transparency requirements,is a better way t

158、o help the digital world move forward.65 Rather than sweeping breakups and divestments,government oversight should focus on particular business practices and complaints.Todays claims that five companiesAlphabet,Amazon,Apple,Meta,and Microsoftare unassailable monopolies are almost self-refuting,espec

159、ially as these firms increasingly compete with each other and face stiffening competition from China and others.66 It might seem justified and tempting to separate Amazons retail and cloud computing businesses;breaking up Alphabet into search,email,Android,YouTube,and other businesses;or demand that

160、 Meta divest Instagram,WhatsApp,or both.But these decisions would cause significant disruption,job loss,and loss of shareholder value,as well as create a chilling effect on innovation and very likely reduce consumer welfare,given that not only are most of these services free,but consumers also INFOR

161、MATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 16 benefit from network effects that allow them to easily connect with many people on these services.Rather than sweeping breakups and divestments,government oversight should focus on particular business practices and complaints.Targeted beha

162、vioral remedies are sometimes justifiedand if done well,they can result in increased competition.However,as in the past,the biggest transformations will come not from antitrust interventions but from shifts in technology and the marketplace.Policymakers need to be both humble about how much they sho

163、uld do and very smart about how to do it.This has never been an easy task,and it will not get any easier going forward.Faced with a rising China and the massive investments needed for the future,Americas digital economy needs to be nudged forward,not dismantled.History shows that doing too much is r

164、iskier than doing too little.CONCLUSION Anti-tech conservatives have legitimate concerns regarding childrens safety and well-being,online free speech,and mistakes made by major tech companies.However,instead of using big government as a sledgehammer against Big Tech,conservatives can address their c

165、oncerns while maintaining traditional conservative principles of minimal government intervention and a free market economy.Importantly,these targeted solutions come with far fewer costs to American businesses,consumers,and the economy than the anti-tech solutions some conservatives propose.About the

166、 Author Ash Johnson(ashljnsn)is a senior policy manager at ITIF specializing in Internet policy issues including privacy,security,platform regulation,e-government,and accessibility for people with disabilities.Her insights appear in numerous prominent media outlets such as TIME,The Washington Post,N

167、PR,BBC,and Bloomberg.Previously,Johnson worked at Software.org:the BSA Foundation,focusing on diversity in the tech industry and STEM education.She holds a masters degree in security policy from The George Washington University and a bachelors degree in sociology from Brigham Young University.About

168、ITIF The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation(ITIF)is an independent 501(c)(3)nonprofit,nonpartisan research and educational institute that has been recognized repeatedly as the worlds leading think tank for science and technology policy.Its mission is to formulate,evaluate,and promote p

169、olicy solutions that accelerate innovation and boost productivity to spur growth,opportunity,and progress.For more information,visit itif.org/about.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 17 ENDNOTES 1.Robert D.Atkinson et al.,“A Policymakers Guide to the TechlashWhat It Is an

170、d Why Its a Threat to Growth and Progress”(ITIF,October 2019),https:/itif.org/publications/2019/10/28/policymakers-guide-techlash/.2.Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith,“Five Conservative Principles to Apply Against Weaponized Antitrust”(The Heritage Foundation,August 2021),https:/www.heritage.

171、org/government-regulation/report/five-conservative-principles-apply-against-weaponized-antitrust.3.Kevin Roberts et al.,Mandate for Leadership:The Conservative Promise(The Heritage Foundation,April 2023),https:/static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.4.Kara Frederick,“Combating Big

172、 Techs Totalitarianism:A Road Map”(The Heritage Foundation,February 2022),https:/www.heritage.org/technology/report/combating-big-techs-totalitarianism-road-map.5.Kevin D.Roberts,“Its Time To Win the War Against Big Tech”(The Heritage Foundation,February 11,2022),https:/www.heritage.org/big-tech/com

173、mentary/its-time-win-the-war-against-big-tech.6.Ash Johnson and Daniel Castro,“President Trumps Attacks on Section 230 Could Backfire”(ITIF,June 3,2020),https:/itif.org/publications/2020/06/03/president-trumps-attacks-section-230-could-backfire/.7.Kelsey Vlamis and Kwan Wei Kevin Tan,“Trumps got big

174、 problems with Big Tech,and Zuckerberg is at the top of his list right now,”Business Insider,July 17,2024,https:/ Ratnam,“Once a tech investor,Vance is now Big Tech critic,”Roll Call,July 17,2024,https:/ V.Coniglio,“Khanservatives Are Wrong About Big Tech”(ITIF,May 1,2024),https:/itif.org/publicatio

175、ns/2024/05/01/khanservatives-are-wrong-about-big-tech/.11.Jared Eckert and Mary McCloskey,“How Big Tech Turns Kids Trans”(The Heritage Foundation,September 15,2022),https:/www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/how-big-tech-turns-kids-trans.12.See,for example,Clare Morell,“The Social Illness,”The Americ

176、an Conservative,February 22,2023,https:/ DeSantis Signs Legislation to Protect Children and Uphold Parental Rights,”Governor Ron DeSantis,published March 25,2024,https:/ et al.,Mandate for Leadership.15.“Pessimists Archive,”Pessimists Archive,accessed September 18,2024,https:/pessimistsarchive.org/.

177、16.“Senate Bill 396,”Arkansas State Legislature,accessed August 22,2024,https:/www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FACT689.pdf;“HB 3,”Florida Senate,accessed August 22,2024,https:/www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF;“Senate Bill 351,”Georgia Genera

178、l Assembly,https:/www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/225587;“Act No.456,”Louisiana State Legislature,accessed August 22,2024,https:/www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1333323;“House Bill No.1126,”Mississippi Legislature,accessed August 22,2024,https:/billstatus.ls.state.ms.us

179、/documents/2024/pdf/HB/1100-1199/HB1126SG.pdf;“H.B.No.18,”Texas Legislature Online,accessed August 22,2024,INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 18 https:/capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00018F.pdf#navpanes=0;“S.B.152 Social Media Regulation Amendments,”Utah Sta

180、te Legislature,accessed August 22,2024,https:/le.utah.gov/2023/bills/static/SB0152.html.17.ACLU of Arkansas,“Judge Blocks Arkansas Law that Would Have Placed Unconstitutional Age-Verification and Parental Consent Requirements on Social Media Users,”ACLU,September 1,2023,https:/www.aclu.org/press-rel

181、eases/judge-blocks-arkansas-law-that-would-have-placed-unconstitutional-age-verification-and-parental-consent-requirements-on-social-media-users;Nate Raymond,“Mississippi law restricting childrens social media use blocked,”Reuters,July 2,2024,https:/ Schoenbaum,“Utah governor replaces social media l

182、aws for youth as state faces lawsuits,”AP News,March 15,2024,https:/ example,Valerie Crowder,“Social media bans for kids would violate their constitutional rights,some argue,”NPR,March 1,2024,https:/www.npr.org/2024/03/01/1235354989/social-media-bans-for-kids-would-violate-their-constitutional-right

183、s-some-argue;Aaron Mackey,“Mississippi Cant Wall Off Everyones Social Media Access to Protect Children,”EFF,https:/www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/mississippi-cant-wall-everyones-social-media-access-protect-children.19.“Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence”(APA,May 2023),https:/www.apa.o

184、rg/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use.pdf.20.“YouTube Kids,”YouTube Kids,accessed September 18,2024,https:/ for Younger Users,”TikTok,published December 13,2019,https:/ Instagram Teen Accounts:Built-In Protections for Teens,Peace of Mind for Parents,”Meta,publis

185、hed September 17,2024,https:/ Johnson,“Why Not Ban Everything Potentially Dangerous for Kids?”(ITIF,February 16,2024),https:/itif.org/publications/2024/02/16/why-not-ban-everything-potentially-dangerous-for-kids/.22.See,for example,David Ng,“In liberal Hollywood,a conservative minority faces backlas

186、h in the age of Trump,”Los Angeles Times,March 11,2017,https:/ Toto,“Hooray for Hollywood unless youre a conservative,”The Hill,March 15,2020,https:/ Castro and Alan McQuinn,“The Privacy Panic Cycle:A Guide to Public Fears About New Technologies”(ITIF,September 2015),https:/www2.itif.org/2015-privac

187、y-panic.pdf.24.Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge,“Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,”New York Post,October 14,2020,https:/ Montgomery,“The Twitter Files,Explained,”Gizmodo,December 3,2022,https:/ example,Laura Romero,“Former Twitter execs told

188、House committee that removal of Hunter Biden laptop story was a mistake,”ABC News,February 8,2023,https:/ Twitter execs”;Jessica Bursztynsky,“Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says blocking New York Post story was wrong,”CNBC,October 16,2020,https:/ TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OCTOBER 2024 PAGE 19 28.Sar

189、a Fischer and Ashley Gold,“All the platforms that have banned or restricted Trump so far,”Axios,January 11,2021,https:/ example,Deena Zaru,“Trump Twitter ban raises concerns over unchecked power of big tech,”ABC News,January 13,2021,https:/ Fung,“Parler has now been booted off Amazon,Apple and Googl

190、e,”CNN,January 11,2021,https:/ Lanum,“Twitter,Facebook,Google have repeatedly censored conservatives despite liberal doubts,”Fox News,March 29,2022,https:/ officials suspended or banned from social media platforms,”Ballotpedia,updated March 10,2023,https:/ballotpedia.org/Elected_officials_suspended_

191、or_banned_from_social_media_platforms.33.Lanum,“Twitter,Facebook,Google.”34.“SB 7072,”Florida Senate,accessed September 10,2024,https:/www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/HTML.35.“H.B.No.20,”Texas Legislature Online,accessed September 10,2024,https:/capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/bill

192、text/html/HB00020F.htm.36.“Supreme Court To Hear Challenges To Texas,Florida Social Media Laws,”CCIA,published September 29,2023,https:/ccianet.org/news/2023/09/supreme-court-to-hear-challenges-to-texas-florida-social-media-laws/.37.Moody v.NetChoice,LLC,603 U.S.(2024).38.Ash Johnson,“New Attempts t

193、o Amend Section 230 Would Impede Content Moderation When It Is Needed Most”(ITIF,September 24,2020),https:/itif.org/publications/2020/09/24/new-attempts-amend-section-230-would-impede-content-moderation-when-it/.39.J.M.Balkin,“Free Speech and Hostile Environments,”Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship

194、 Series 253(1999),2,https:/digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=fss_papers.40.Frederick,“Combating Big Techs Totalitarianism.”41.John Bowden,“Google Execs Lament Trump Win in Leaked Video,”The Hill,September 13,2018,https:/ Big Techs Totalitarianism.”43.Bobby Allyn,“P

195、resident Biden signs law to ban TikTok nationwide unless it is sold,”NPR,April 24,2024,https:/www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-us.44.Roberts et al.,Mandate for Leadership.45.Frederick,“Combating Big Techs Totalitarianism.”46.Alan McQuinn,“The Economics of Opt-Out Versus Opt-In Priv

196、acy Rules”(ITIF,October 6,2017,https:/itif.org/publications/2017/10/06/economics-opt-out-versus-opt-in-privacy-rules.47.Frederick,“Combating Big Techs Totalitarianism.”48.Alan McQuinn and Daniel Castro,“The Costs of an Unnecessarily Stringent Federal Data Privacy Law”(ITIF,August 2019),https:/itif.o

197、rg/sites/default/files/2019-cost-data-privacy-law.pdf.49.Daniel Castro,“Who Stands to Benefit the Most From New Data Privacy Laws?Lawyers”(ITIF,August 9,2019),https:/itif.org/publications/2019/08/09/who-stands-benefit-most-new-data-privacy-laws-lawyers.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY&INNOVATION FOUNDATION|OC

198、TOBER 2024 PAGE 20 50.Roberts et al.,Mandate for Leadership.51.Andy Kroll,ProPublica,and Nick Surgey,“DeSantis Privately Called for Google to be Broken Up,”ProPublica,March 21,2023,https:/www.propublica.org/article/desantis-google-teneo-video-big-tech-breakup.52.Jody Godoy,“Trump VP pick supports Bi

199、g Tech antitrust crackdown,”Reuters,July 15,2024,https:/ has now been booted.”54.Joseph V.Coniglio,“Banana Republicanism:Khanservatism Will Not Address Censorship Concerns”(ITIF,July 29,2024),https:/itif.org/publications/2024/07/29/khanservatism-will-not-address-censorship/.55.Robert D.Atkinson and

200、Ian Tufts,“Hamilton Index,2023:China Is Running Away With Strategic Industries”(ITIF,December 2023),https:/itif.org/publications/2023/12/13/2023-hamilton-index/.56.Lingling Wei and Asa Fitch,“Chinas New Tech Weapon:Dragging Its Feet on Global Merger Approvals,”The Wall Street Journal,April 4,2023,ht

201、tps:/ Are Wrong.”58.Ash Johnson,“How to Address Childrens Online Safety in the United States”(ITIF,June 2024),https:/itif.org/publications/2024/06/03/how-to-address-childrens-online-safety-in-united-states/.59.Roberts et al.,Mandate for Leadership.60.Ash Johnson and Daniel Castro,“How to Address Pol

202、itical Speech on Social Meda in the United States”(ITIF,October 2022),https:/itif.org/publications/2022/10/11/how-to-address-political-speech-on-social-media-in-the-united-states/.61.Ibid.62.Ash Johnson and Daniel Castro,“Maintaining a Light-Touch Approach to Data Protection in the United States”(IT

203、IF,August 2022),https:/itif.org/publications/2022/08/08/maintaining-a-light-touch-approach-to-data-protection-in-the-united-states/.63.Alex Alben,“Any Remake of Antitrust Law for the Digital Economy Should Advance the Principles of Consumer Protection and Free Competition”(ITIF,June 5,2023),https:/i

204、tif.org/publications/2023/06/05/any-remake-of-antitrust-law-for-the-digital-economy-should-advance-consumer-protection-and-free-competition/.64.See,for example,Joseph V.Coniglio,“DOJ v.Google:Six Weak Spots in Judge Mehtas Decision”(ITIF,August 23,2024),https:/itif.org/publications/2024/08/23/six-we

205、ak-spots-judge-mehta-google-decision/;Joseph V.Coniglio,“Is Meta Really a Monopoly?Debunking the FTCs Definition Metaphysics”(ITIF,June 6,2024),https:/itif.org/publications/2024/06/06/is-meta-monopoly-debunking-ftc-market-definition-metaphysics/;Joseph V.Coniglio,“FTC vs.Amazon:The Beginning of the

206、End for the Neo-Brandeisians?”(ITIF,October 3,2023),https:/itif.org/publications/2023/10/03/ftc-vs-amazon-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-neo-brandeisians/.65.David Moschella,“Theory Aside,Antitrust Advocates Should Keep Their Big Tech Ambitions Narrow”(ITIF,March 7,2022),https:/itif.org/publications/2022/03/07/theory-aside-antitrust-advocates-should-keep-big-tech-ambitions-narrow/.66.David Moschella and Robert D.Atkinson,“Big Tech Is Not Immune to Creative Destruction”(ITIF,January 7,2022),https:/itif.org/publications/2022/01/07/big-tech-not-immune-creative-destruction.