Mike Davis

From banning the sitting President of the United States to de-platforming conservative journalists to muzzling the oldest continuously-published newspaper in the United States, Twitter under Jack Dorsey has been perhaps the leading force for censorship in America in the 21st century thus far.

As someone who has been erroneously suspended from Twitter no fewer than four times, I know this to be true firsthand. There’s no doubt Jack Dorsey was completely comfortable with silencing those with whom he disagreed. But things can always get worse. And this week they just did.

On Monday, Twitter announced CTO Parag Agrawal would take over Jack Dorsey’s job as CEO. The very next day, newly under Agrawal’s leadership, Twitter announced it would ban so-called “private media” – significantly increasing the range of reasons both content and users could be permanently banned from the platform. The policy claims it is intended to protect private individuals from having their personal information posted online and to prevent bullying and harassment. But upon closer scrutiny, it’s clear just how dangerous to the cause of free speech this policy could be.

Seemingly, the policy would allow Twitter’s censors to ban users who post videos of lootings in Democrat-run cities as the individual looters did not consent. The same would go for violent antifa criminals or “mostly peaceful” BLM rioters, cell phone videos of hate crimes being committed against Asian-Americans, photo evidence showing Kyle Rittenhouse was merely defending himself and Hunter Biden’s emails implicating his father in a pay-for-play scheme with foreign powers.

All could be banned as “private media” under Twitter’s new policy. The common denominator? All hurt Democrats. And those posting the content are overwhelmingly conservative, or at least free-thinking independents or liberals who refuse to play leftists’ games. The policy, which is clearly written as intentionally vague and overly broad, is nothing more than a naked power grab by the pro-censorship camp. And that was on Day One of Twitter’s new CEO.

And on Day Four, Twitter even censored links to the American Heart Association’s new published study on heart-disease risks from COVID vaccines.

These changes are unsurprising to anyone familiar with Agrawal’s history. Shortly after he was named CEO, Agrawal’s old tweets resurfaced, exposing him as anti-Trump activist who threatened to label all white people racist. Perhaps worst of all was his argument that Twitter’s “role is not to be bound by the First Amendment,” and to “focus less on thinking about free speech but thinking about how the times have changed.” This, from the man now in charge of America’s modern-day public square. Knowing what we know about Agrawal, his first steps as CEO seem transparently designed to strengthen Twitter’s power to silence conservative activists, journalists and whistleblowers and censor information that is politically damaging to Democrats.

Suffice to say, free speech at Twitter this week went from bad to worse. While this is just the latest step in a series toward less free speech and more censorship, it is part of a broader trend among the Left and their allies in Silicon Valley toward illiberalism and a willingness to use every tool at Big Tech’s disposal to silence conservatives and remove us from the online political debate. It also demonstrates just how disconnected from American values the Big Tech oligarchs at Twitter and other social media platforms are. Whereas we all used to agree on the fundamental American values of open dialogue and free expression, today’s Left and their Big Tech allies view themselves as the rightful gatekeepers of information in our republic. This is a social, political and legal emergency that must be addressed.

Thankfully, there are solutions being proposed in Congress by conservative warriors like Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) and Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), among many others. They have proposed legislation to rein in and break up Big Tech that must be passed into law this Congress.

Simply put, if Big Tech platforms like Google and YouTube or Facebook and Instagram had to compete for their users, it’s much less likely they’d abuse them with censorship. Patriotic Americans concerned with Big Tech’s power over our politics should call their representatives and senators and demand they support these bills. Big Tech platforms are only getting bolder and more aggressive in their quest to silence, cancel and erase conservatives. They must be stopped.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, a conservative grassroots advocacy organization that opposes Big Tech and seeks to hold these companies accountable for their bad acts. He was previously chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa.

The post Censorship Just Got Worse On Twitter, But Free Speech Isn’t Dead Yet appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

“This is a major breakthrough in the fight to rein in Big Tech. Just yesterday, Jeff Bezos was exposed for lying to Congress about Amazon’s practice of self-preferencing its own products. The effort to put an end to Big Tech’s antitrust amnesty is growing in Congress. It’s bipartisan and now it’s bicameral. Big Tech cheats, lies, and steals and must be held accountable. This is about fairness for small businesses so they can compete on a level playing field with Big Tech. The Internet Accountability Project applauds the leadership of Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, Cynthia Lummis and John Kennedy. We look forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of their legislation. Favorably reporting this bill out of committee should be an easy vote for every senator.”

IAP is a nonprofit conservative advocacy group that holds Big Tech accountable for engaging in egregious business practices like snooping, spying, political bias against conservatives, employee abuses and anticompetitive conduct. Davis previously served as Chief Counsel for Nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and led the Senate confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and a record number of circuit court judges. More information on Davis and IAP can be foundhere.

The post IAP Statement on Bipartisan Senate Bill to Rein in Big Tech appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

By: Mike Davis

The U.S. is woefully behind the rest of the world in enacting universal, comprehensive data privacy laws that protect consumers. A messy patchwork of disjointed and woefully outdated laws leaves Americans vulnerable to attacks on their private data.

However, the federal government can learn from other governments, both foreign and domestic, to develop laws that give everyday Americans more control over their personal information.

It would be inaccurate to say that the U.S. does not have laws that protect data. In fact, it has too many. According to The New York Times, the U.S. “has a mix of laws that go by acronyms like HIPAA, FCRA, FERPA, GLBA, ECPA, COPPA, and VPPA.” How could anyone expect the average American to know the details behind these laws, designed to target specific industries in limited (and often outdated) circumstances, much less know what any one of these acronyms stand for?

You can rest assured that your VHS rental records will never be leaked, thanks to the Video Privacy Protection Act, or VPPA, passed in 1988. But what’s deeply concerning is how little protection these laws offer Americans in the 21st century with far more prevalent and pervasive technologies. In most states, companies can use, share or sell your data without your consent and are not required to notify you if your data has been breached.

Around the world, governments have taken concrete steps to enact data privacy legislation. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, which became effective in 2018, is both a consumer data privacy law as well as a data security law. It gives individuals the right to access and delete data, correct incorrect data, and opt out of processing at any time. The GDPR also requires explicit consent when consumers hand over their data.

Brazil, inspired by the GDPR, followed suit, passing the General Data Protection Law, which took effect last year. And in August, our chief adversary, China, passed the Personal Information Protection Law, a comprehensive set of rules around data collection, processing and protection. Isn’t something wrong when even China is reining in Big Tech and enacting tougher data privacy laws than the United States? 

While other parts of the world have tackled this important and pressing issue, the U.S. doesn’t need to look further than our own “laboratories of democracy” — state governments. While the current number of states that have comprehensive data privacy laws may seem small (California, Colorado and Virginia), there’s been a sizable increase in interest from other states in a relatively short amount of time. The International Association of Privacy Professionals counts six states actively considering legislation and another 17 that have considered legislation.

The Californian Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which was signed into law in 2018 and became effective last year, shares many similarities with the EU’s GDPR and has been called the “most comprehensive internet-focused data privacy legislation in the U.S.” Like the GDPR, consumers can access and delete data and opt out of processing at any time. However, consumers cannot correct incorrect data, and while the GDPR explicitly requires consent, the CCPA only requires a privacy notice to be made available informing consumers of their right to opt out.

Experts identify four basic protections that should be considered when considering data privacy legislation: data collection and sharing rights; opt-in consent; data minimization and nondiscrimination; and no data-use discrimination. Beyond that, a comprehensive notification law, which would codify what happens when a data breach takes place, is strongly encouraged. A hotly contested provision, “private right of action,” which would allow an individual to sue a company over privacy violations, has led to some legislation stalling in the states. But some argue that this provision may not be needed so long as there’s adequate enforcement behind the laws. And while experts would prefer an opt-in consent model, the ability to use browser extensions or other tools that opt out automatically may be a welcome compromise.

The best way to protect consumer data privacy may be through more competition and a concept called data portability. At the federal level, Reps. David Cicilline, D-R.I., Ken Buck, R-Colo., Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., and Burgess Owens, R-Utah, are championing bipartisan legislation approved by the House Judiciary Committee that would allow users to seamlessly move their data from one platform to another. The ACCESS Act would empower consumers to reward tech companies that respect their data and punish those that don’t.

While this is an ever-evolving issue, the U.S. cannot afford to fall further behind. Losing out to China on yet another issue could be catastrophic for America’s future. Many governments have risen to the occasion to address this important matter, and, while no solutions are perfect, these actions signal they are serious about addressing this public safety issue. The U.S. should follow suit.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, a conservative grassroots advocacy organization that opposes Big Tech and seeks to hold these companies accountable for their bad acts. He was previously chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa. 

The post Mike Davis: US must catch up with rest of the world on data privacy appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

“Throughout his over 20-year career, Kanter has distinguished himself as a strong advocate for meaningful antitrust enforcement and robust competition, both in private practice and as a government attorney,” Davis wrote. “Importantly, there is strong Republican support for addressing the anticompetitive conduct of the dominant digital platforms. Kanter’s nomination has already received the praise from the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, Senator Mike Lee, who said that he was ‘encouraged’ by Kanter’s track record.” 

“Kanter is deeply knowledgeable of the law and economics of antitrust as well as the costs associated with underenforcement. Not adequately enforcing our antitrust laws makes it harder for businesses that play by the rules to thrive and create jobs, while limited competition leads to higher prices and suppressed innovation that hurts consumers. The lack of competition between digital platforms in particular has resulted in the dangerous suppression of conservative voices and viewpoints. Considering these costs, it is imperative that the Senate confirm Jonathan Kanter in a timely fashion.” 

Read the full letter here. 

IAP is a nonprofit conservative advocacy group that holds Big Tech accountable for engaging in egregious business practices like snooping, spying, political bias against conservatives, employee abuses and anticompetitive conduct. Davis previously served as Chief Counsel for Nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and led the Senate confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and a record number of circuit court judges. More information on Davis and IAP can be found here.

###

The post IAP Urges Senate to Swiftly Confirm Kanter for Top DOJ Antitrust Job appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

In 2000, Google began using “don’t be evil” as its unofficial motto. That pledge, shared internally among employees, rightly acknowledged that any company trusted with vast amounts of personal information ought to maintain the trust and confidence of the people the company claims to serve. Google believed that the public could count on it to do the right thing. 

Two decades later, while Google has gained power beyond anything the company’s founders could have imagined, it has long since departed from its original commitment to ethical behavior. Indeed, Google attempts to de-platform conservative voices, it has helped China oppress vulnerable minorities, and the corporate behemoth has had no qualms about misusing user data. Google’s recent failure to protect coronavirus contact tracing information is the latest example in a long line of betrayals.   

In early 2020, as the world was coming to terms with the pandemic’s extent, companies like Google and Apple offered to assist with contact-tracing software. Their apps, available on Androids and iPhones, allowed users to determine whether they had come in contact with individuals exposed to COVID-19. Because successful contact tracing requires highly sensitive personal information regarding an individual’s movement, with whom he has been in contact, and whether the user has tested positive for coronavirus, Apple and Google reassured the public that any data it collected would be anonymized. Furthermore, the companies promised that they would never share information with anyone other than government health agencies. It was assurances such as these that induced many Americans to trust Apple and Google’s apps.CARTOONS | GARY VARVELVIEW CARTOON

A recent report by The Markup reveals that Google failed to keep its word. In its current form, Google’s contact-tracing app allows third-party apps to access sensitive data collected by Google. There is no way to determine whether these other apps have harvested contact-tracing data from Google and, if so, what they have done with it. But perhaps more concerning than Google’s failure to design a secure app is its refusal to fix the vulnerability—even after a consulting firm hired by the Department of Homeland Security to test the app alerted Google that a simple fix could resolve the issue. In the end, Google’s multiple assurances that the public could trust it to protect sensitive user data proved to be worthless.

Google’s conduct is, unfortunately, not surprising. The company has a long record of promising to protect user information while secretly misusing it for profit. For example, Google has been caught recording location information from its apps—despite explicitly telling users that their information would not be collected. In 2019, a whistleblower revealed that Google had acquired the medical data of up to 50 million Americans without their consent. And more recently, Google used tools it provided to schools to harvest data from students both inside and outside the classroom without parental consent—data that included, among many other things, browsing history, voice recordings, and location information.

One would think that scandals such as these would embarrass a company long dedicated to not being “evil,” but Google feels no shame. Instead, the company constantly seeks more of our data. And with a 90% share of the global search market, Google almost always gets what it wants. Indeed, with such a grip on the world’s information, Google can control what we read, what we see—what we think. Using that immense power, it has felt no qualms about silencing conservative voices or manipulating search results to prevent disfavored websites from being seen. Google has been caught distributing apps from companies that assist the Communist Chinese Government in persecuting Uighur Muslims and developing a special search engine that would allow the Chinese Communist Party to hide its abuses from the Chinese people. Some have even made the case that Google’s manipulations have changed enough votes to alter the outcome of American elections. In short, Google has become exactly what its old motto warned against—evil.    

If Google can’t be counted on to do the right thing during a pandemic, why should we expect it ever to operate in the public’s interest? The time is now for Congress to take action and prevent future abuses against the American people. We have trusted Google for too long with too much. It has proven entirely undeserving of that trust.

And Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO) is serving as the tip of the spear in bringing much-needed accountability to the woke trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists, like Google, by pushing 6 pieces of bipartisan legislation in the House to update our century-old antitrust laws and hold Big Tech accountable for their outrageous market abuses.

For too long, we’ve seen congressional Republicans tweet their outrage about Big Tech. Now is their change to actually do something big and important. They must join forces with Congressman Ken Buck to get these 6 critical bipartisan measures through Congress and signed into law.

A free market requires a functioning market. Antitrust is law enforcement that targets the anti-competitive market tumors. This is the opposite of regulation and “Big Government.” The era of Big Tech’s antitrust amnesty must end. Conservatives support free markets and law enforcement; we oppose amnesty.

The time for talking is over. We must break up Big Tech now.

The post Mike Davis: Google Cannot Be Trusted—Now or Ever appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

Forget your spouse, your best friend, or your mom: there’s a good chance that Google knows you best of all. They know your deepest, burning questions, or at least whatever you search for when you’re awake at 3 a.m. Google has the draft of that email you never sent to your ex. They know how many times you’ve had to reset the password to every account you have on the internet – and what you’ve changed it to. They know if you’re the type to arrive at the airport early or if you like to cut it close – because they can see the receipt from your rideshare drop off and what time your flight leaves. Google knows you can never remember how many ounces are in a cup or how to get to your in-laws’ house.

Most of that may seem pretty innocuous – until you realize that Google is constantly working to extend its reach into your life. Google makes money off advertising – over 80% of the revenue of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, comes from Google ads. In 2020, that equated to $147 billion. The further Google can creep into consumers’ lives and extract data, the bigger the payoff.

From across the political spectrum, the outcry over privacy concerns has been steadily increasing, but it hasn’t slowed Google from aggressively finding new ways to collect information. Worse, they are often doing so under the banner of altruism. They’ve attempted to launch fiber-optic lines to bring internet to unreached parts of the country and partnered with some of the largest health care systems to help improve patient outcomes. The pandemic gave Google the perfect opening to become even more entrenched in schools, as districts switched to online learning and purchased thousands of Chromebooks for students. In reality, all of this has just given Google a larger peek behind the curtain of our lives.

Take Google Fiber, a project first pioneered in 2010 that aimed to build high-speed, fiber-optic networks to get more Americans online. By 2016, Google had paused the project, after realizing just how expensive it was to build these networks in hard-to-reach areas. Not to be deterred, Google is now urging local governments to build fiber networks, on the taxpayers’ dime, that it will then use to sell its own internet service.

This will give Google access to the networks, meaning they can profit from the data they extract from the taxpayers who paid for the networks in the first place. Municipal governments turning their taxpayer-funded broadband infrastructure over to Google would be a massive government handout to a company under multiple federal and state investigations for privacy and antitrust violations.

Then there’s their foray into health care, a natural decision given that it’s a multi-billion-dollar industry. Google has partnered with some of the largest health care systems around the country, allowing them to collect and analyze the health data of millions of Americans. There has been bipartisan pushback from Congress about privacy concerns, including the fact that certain deals have allowed Google to access patient information, including personally identifiable data. Most recently, Google announced a partnership with the Hospital Corporation of America, which has 2,000 locations in 21 states. Again, Google claims to be doing this strictly for the benefit of patients, but as an executive whose company decided to go in a different direction said, “We could never pin down Google on what their true business model was.”

It’s a similar story in education. If you have a school age child, there’s a 50-50 chance their teacher is using Google Classrooms to take attendance, mark down bad behavior, or grade assignments. Since the early 2010’s, Google has been offering services like email and document sharing at no-cost – other companies can’t compete with free. At the same time, Google began pitching their Chromebooks to schools. The laptops are cheaper than traditional laptops – making them attractive to schools – because they, rather conveniently, can only run the Google suite of software.

The New York Times has called this “the Googlification of the classroom.” Google has been evasive about how much data it collects from its school-related services and what it does with that information. This begs the question, if Google really is just putting this out as a service, what does it have to gain?

Google is a digital gatekeeper unprecedented in size, power and influence that has repeatedly violated their users’ privacy. Giving Google control over more of our lives will further entrench their dominance and enable them to exploit their position far into the future. Data is big money and Google is determined to creep into every nook and cranny.

Mike Davis is founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project (IAP), a conservative grassroots advocacy organization that opposes Big Tech and seeks to hold them accountable for their bad acts.

The post Mike Davis: Google Is Creeping In On Americans’ Privacy appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

Newsweek

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court stripped the Federal Trade Commission of a powerful tool for holding trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists—Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple—accountable for their outrageous market abuses. In many respects, the agency’s ability to secure hefty equitable relief—such as restitution or disgorgement—in federal court was the one thing preventing these Goliaths from abusing the American people without consequence. Absent new legislation, the public is sure to suffer at the hands of Big Tech. Congress must act to empower the FTC to do its job.

The FTC is the nation’s premier consumer-protection agency. Every year, it holds countless bad actors accountable for abuses committed against everyday Americans, ranging from identity theft and fraud to anticompetitive practices in violation of federal antitrust law. The agency has proven to be a particularly effective tool for holding Big Tech accountable for its many misdeeds. While the FTC can, and does, enforce the law through administrative proceedings, it often takes its claims against bad actors directly to court, which can provide quick and effective relief. Many times, the mere threat of FTC action is enough to prevent illegal conduct.

For decades, the FTC has used Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act not only to obtain injunctions preventing future unlawful conduct, but also to force companies and individuals to relinquish money they wrongfully obtained from the public. That all changed on April 22, when the Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, the high court ruled that Section 13(b) does not authorize the FTC to seek monetary disgorgement from businesses that engage in abusive practices. While the FTC may still obtain a court order forbidding a company from continuing its bad conduct, the agency must rely on a less efficient—and less effective—administrative process to recoup money taken as a result of that conduct.

It would be an understatement to say that the Court’s decision represents a setback for the FTC’s efforts to hold Big Tech accountable for abuses against Americans. Over the past five decades, the FTC had used Section 13(b) to return literally billions of dollars to everyday Americans—money that seedy companies wrongfully took from unsuspecting consumers. For example, Google and its subsidiary YouTube agreed to a record $170 million settlement in 2019 after the FTC brought an enforcement action in federal court challenging YouTube’s practice of illegally collecting personal information from children without their parents’ consent. The Supreme Court’s elimination of the FTC’s authority to seek disgorgement will make recoupments such as this impossible. In fact, even before the Court rendered its decision, companies under investigation by the FTC began refusing to agree to settlements, predicting (correctly) that the FTC would soon lack the ability to obtain court-ordered equitable relief.

An illustration picture taken in London on December 18, 2020 shows the logos of Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft displayed on a mobile phone and a laptop screen.

Now is not the time to let Big Tech run wild. Whether it was Twitter’s decision to block a legitimate news story that risked harming the Biden campaign, Facebook’s efforts to shield the founder of Black Lives Matter from embarrassment or Amazon’s censorship of books critical of transgender ideology, conservatives are well-acquainted with Big Tech’s unfair treatment.

Perhaps the most egregious example, of course, was the coordinated effort of Apple, Google and Amazon to destroy Parler, which progressives feared could provide a platform for independent voices challenging leftist orthodoxy. The Supreme Court’s decision will only embolden such bad behavior. Indeed, Big Tech has already begun to leverage the Supreme Court’s decision to avoid FTC enforcement entirely. For example, Facebook now argues that the FTC lacks the means to hold it accountable for allegedly maintaining an illegal monopoly through anticompetitive conduct. Until the FTC’s power to seek equitable relief in federal court is restored, the American people will lack an effective tool for combating Big Tech’s many and growing abuses.

Now is the time for our representatives in Washington to act. As the Supreme Court noted in its AMG Capital Management, LLC decision, Congress has already considered at least one bill that would restore the FTC’s ability to make Big Tech pay for the harms it inflicts on everyday Americans. And in recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the FTC encouraged Congress to introduce similar legislation once again. The American people depend on robust enforcement to hold giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Twitter in check; a toothless FTC simply isn’t up to the task.

Congress should send a bill to the president’s desk without delay. No one should be above the law—not even Big Tech.

Mike Davis is president and founder of the Internet Accountability Project. He is a former top attorney for the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and previously served in the United States Department of Justice. Davis also clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch, both on the Tenth Circuit and on the Supreme Court.

The post Mike Davis: Congress Must Empower the FTC To Fight Big Tech’s Abuses appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

“’The Judiciary Committee frameworks create a private right of action for Americans to vindicate their rights when Big Tech infringes upon them. Under this framework, Americans will be given ‘the chance to sue the tech giants for a[n] infringement of their free speech rights.’

“‘The frameworks also seek to move all antitrust enforcement authority to the DOJ thereby cutting off half the government’s resources to go after Big Tech for antitrust violations. These proposals combined effectively shift the burden and cost of enforcement onto the individual citizen and are a huge win for Big Tech.'”

Read more HERE.

The post Insta Pundit: Thumbs Down on Big Tech Reform appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

Buck is in a group of conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats who want to take on Big Tech in legislation

“Rep. Ken Buck said Friday that Republicans should not take donations from Big Tech, in order to avoid the appearance that they are being influenced by the massive corporations. But the Colorado Republican tread very carefully when asked about the disagreements in the GOP in Congress about how to handle Big Tech...

“Others on the right, including Internet Accountability Project President Mike Davis, have been less diplomatic about conservatives’ differences on big tech. 

“‘Why do you take money from trillion-dollar #BigTech monopolists that are canceling conservatives & crushing small businesses?’ Davis said in a tweet slamming Jordan for his opposition to the House Judiciary Committee’s anti-trust bills.”

Read more HERE.

The post Fox News: Rep. Ken Buck says Republicans shouldn’t take Big Tech donations or be ‘influenced’ by massive companies appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.

A document circulating among conservatives on K Street and on Capitol Hill — authored in part by Mike Davis, a former Senate GOP staffer and head of the Internet Accountability Project — takes on Jordan and McCarthy’s frameworks point by point. Davis posted the document via Substack when MT reached out.

Read more HERE.

The post POLITICO: Knifes Out appeared first on Internet Accountability Project.